Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities

Abstract

The industry sector has a significant responsibility for the depletion of fossil fuels and emission of carbon dioxide. Thus, several initiatives have been implemented by the industry sector to mitigate those issues. One initiative corresponds to the implementation of energy efficiency strategies. In particular, the food industry is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and the food demand is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. Therefore, developing energy efficiency strategies for this particular industrial sector is crucial. This paper investigates the different opportunities for energy efficiency in the food industry. It first provides a brief overview of the various food industries and related energy consumption. Then, the different options for energy efficiency in the thermal and electric sector are discussed. New trends and opportunities, arising from industry 4.0 and demand response, are also presented.

Full text

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
Date of publication xxxx 00, 0000, date of current version xxxx 00, 0000.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.DOI
Review of Energy Efficiency
Technologies in the Food Industry:
Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
JEAN-MICHEL CLAIRAND1,2, (Member, IEEE), MARCO BRICEÑO-LEÓN1,3, GUILLERMO
ESCRIVÁ-ESCRIVÁ3, AND ANTONIO MARCO PANTALEO.2,4
1Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Aplicadas, Universidad de las Américas, 170122 Quito, Ecuador
2Department of Agro-environmental Sciences, University of Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy
3Institute for Energy Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
4Clean Energy Processes (CEP) Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ London, United Kingdom
Corresponding author: Jean-Michel Clairand (e-mail: jean.clairand@udla.edu.ec).
ABSTRACT The industry sector has a significant responsibility for the depletion of fossil fuels and
emission of carbon dioxide. Thus, several initiatives have been implemented by the industry sector to
mitigate those issues. One initiative corresponds to the implementation of energy efficiency strategies.
In particular, the food industry is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and the food demand is expected to
grow significantly in the coming years. Therefore, developing energy efficiency strategies for this particular
industrial sector is crucial. This paper investigates the different opportunities for energy efficiency in
the food industry. It first provides a brief overview of the various food industries and related energy
consumption. Then, the different options for energy efficiency in the thermal and electric sector are
discussed. New trends and opportunities, arising from industry 4.0 and demand response, are also presented.
INDEX TERMS Energy Efficiency, Food Industry, Industry 4.0, Renewable Energy, Waste-to-Energy
I. INTRODUCTION
Environmental concerns and fossil fuel depletion are forcing
the development of policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Renewable Energies (REs), such as solar and
wind, are among the most frequently adopted options. How-
ever, fossil fuels correspond to 80% of the total worldwide
energy usage, and half of all electricity generated comes from
fossil fuelled plants [1], [2].
Another policy includes industrial energy efficiency [3],
which is a major concern particularly in developing coun-
tries, and it is defined as the ratio of service output of a
process to the energy input into that process [2]. The goal
of industries could be to maximize the useful outputs or
minimize the energy inputs. Energy efficiency can be used,
particularly at the macrolevel, to analyze industrial activity
and its performance. Energy efficiency indicators could be di-
vided into thermodynamic, thermophysic, thermoeconomic,
and economic [2].
In particular, industrial factories are high energy con-
sumers and thus represent an opportunity for electricity
utilities to properly manage electricity consumption [4]–
[6]. Energy efficiency initiatives enable large industries to
reduce their consumption and improve their operational out-
put, thereby improving their benefits [7]. However, industrial
processes are mostly rigid due to production constraints of
the plants, which discourage some industries from adopting
these initiatives [8]–[10].
Among the others, growing attention has been devoted to
the food industry. The food industry also includes energy-
intensive activities, and the energy-related costs among the
total productions costs are between 20% and 50% [11].
Moreover, the food industry represents a high percentage (ap-
proximately 12%) of the total electricity consumed in the in-
dustrial sector [12]. However, the energy in the food sector is
not always appropriately used due to many inefficiencies are
observed in the food processing technologies [9], [13], [14].
Food industries are also responsible for greenhouse (GHG)
emissions like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (C H4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O). Once fossil fuels are burned for energy
generation, carbon dioxide is released. Methane is produced
from paddy fields, from the fermentation of livestock and
from the decomposition of food waste in land-fills, while
nitrous oxide emanates from the application of fertilizers to
grow crops [15]. The emissions are divided in direct and indi-
VOLUME 4, 2016 1

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
rect emissions. Direct use of energy is for on-farm operations
at the processing of raw materials and during various stages
of manufacturing processes, while indirect use of energy is
during storage, transport and use of electricity to run the food
industry [16]. Moreover, industrial sector customers usually
participate less in energy efficiency activities, mainly because
of their smaller individual contributions to grid management
as well as the technical barriers of integrating these customers
due to the rigidity of their activities [17]. Significant efforts
are needed towards more sustainable agriculture to face
the growing population, especially for developing countries,
where the population growth rates are higher. In particular,
a gap will likely occur between energy and food production
growth, with the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)
estimating that food production will need to increase by 70%
by 2050 but forecasting that energy production will only in-
crease by one third [11]. The main energy types are electrical,
thermal, and mechanical. All these types can be supplied by
REs, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Moreover,
in developing countries, many farms and food industries
are located in isolated places, which increases the expenses
required for a distribution system; thus, distribution in RES-
based microgrids becomes more economically beneficial.
Opportunities are available to reduce energy consumption
in the food industry in all stages; however, the success of
energy efficiency measures depends mostly on behavioral
change [18].
In the food industry, the energy consumption is spread all
over the various food treatment processes, although energy
consumption is observed in the global agri-food chain, such
as in the input agriculture products (e.g., water pumping, live-
stock housing, greenhouse climate control, storage, etc.) and
the delivery process, such as transportation and refrigeration.
The aim of energy efficiency in the food industry is to
produce more or similar amounts of food using a lower
amount of energy [18].
With new advances in Information and Communication
Technology (ICT), new techniques are available to improve
the use of energy in various industries, such as the food
industry, especially through the application of the Internet of
things (IoT) [19], [20].
The aim of this paper is to identify the main technologies
of energy efficiency in food industry. It explains the typical
strategies, highlighting the new trends, barriers, and opportu-
nities.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II
presents an overview of the classification of food process-
ing technologies, and related energy consumption patterns.
Section III discusses the thermal energy efficiency options.
Section IV studies the Waste to Energy technology in food
processing. Section V presents the new trends in Smart food
processing. Finally, Section VI highlights the main conclu-
sions and future challenges.
II. BACKGROUND: CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD
PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND RELATED ENERGY
CONSUMPTION PATTERNS
In the food industry, to convert edible raw materials into more
high-value food products, food processes use considerable
amounts of labor, technology, and energy. The amount of en-
ergy used is different in each country, although in developing
countries, the energy consumed by the food industry is gen-
erally very high. For example, in certain African countries,
the share of the national energy consumed by the agri-food
chain may contribute to as high as 55%, while in USA is
around 15.7% [18]. Note that of the energy consumed for
agri-food in African countries, around 65-75 % corresponds
for cooking and preparation, which is typically inefficient.
Moreover, the energy consumption and energy type used
for the processing of a certain quantity of goods depends
heavily on their nature. For example, in fruit and vegetable
processing in the UK, 13.68 MJ/kg product of fuel and only
1.48 MJ/kg product of electricity are required for French
fries; 9 MJ/kg product of electricity and 8.3 MJ/kg product of
fuel are required for crisps production; while only 0.43 MJ/kg
product of electricity and 1.50 MJ/kg product of fuel are
required for jam production [21]. The energy consumption
by the end users mostly includes process heat, refrigeration,
motor drives, heat, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems [22].
A. SIZE OF THE FOOD INDUSTRY
Food processing systems can be categorized based on their
size and range from small family consumption to large
commercial consumption, which could supply huge amounts
of food across the world [18]. Although energy efficiency
can be improved across all food processing systems, the
dependence on fossil fuels varies significantly based on the
size of the food processing system; thus, greater attention
must be devoted to high energy-consuming systems to reduce
their consumption [23].
•Subsistence: Subsistence producers are families en-
gaged in the most basic forms of small-scale farming
and fishing, and they produce food for their own use
solely. Subsistence producers use very low inputs of
energy, usually from human and animal power. These
inputs of energy are generally not included in world
energy statistics.
•Small farms: Small family farming units can engage in
different activities depending on modernization, includ-
ing the development of small gardens or rice fields, or-
ganic vegetables, orchards, cattle rearing, private fishing
boats and dairy herds (from a few to dozens of cattle).
Depending on the type of modernization, these farms
can engage in different activities.
•Small business: These farms can be managed by a fam-
ily but are often private. They work slightly more and
hire more people than small farms. These companies can
reduce their fossil fuel dependence by improving energy
2VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
efficiency and generating RE on-farm, which may offer
the local community additional benefits.
•Large farms: Corporate food systems depend on high
direct external supply chain energy inputs, and they
include fish trawler fleets, feed farms, sugar companies
and palm oil farms. A processing mill company may
own and manage large farm estates. Some benefits are
more likely to flow to local communities that belong
to a growing cooperative. In general, large corporate
companies have access to investment financing for clean
energy and energy efficient equipment. For additional
sales, energy can be used on-farm or off-farm.
Table 1 summarizes the energy consumption based on
the food industry scale. It should be noted that the capital
availability depends considerably on the willingness to invest
in energy efficiency strategies.
B. TYPE OF FOOD INDUSTRY
There are various food industries, although we can identify
some of the main industries that are the focus of this work:
•Dairy farms
•Meat farms
•Grain and oilseed milling
•Sugar and confectionary processing
•Fruit and vegetable processing
•Bakery industry
C. ENERGY-CONSUMING TECHNOLOGIES
The main energy-consuming technologies are present in vari-
ous steps, and they are detailed as follows, as depicted in Fig.
1.
FIGURE 1: Processes or End-uses Technologies in food
industry.
•Drying: This process consists of artificially drying ce-
reals after harvesting and before storage and trans-
port. The energy used is approximately 0.5-0.75 MJ/kg,
which could be electricity, natural gas, or liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), to dry wet grain to an appropriate
storage moisture content [23]. This step could be one
of the more energy-intensive operations, especially for
developing countries.
•Storage: This process consists of maintaining food at the
proper temperature conditions to avoid degrading the
quality of the product and provide both safe and high-
quality foods. The typical machines used for storage in
the food industry are energy consuming and include re-
frigerators and freezers. Storage involves approximately
1-3 MJ/kg product of retail food product.
•Food and beverage processing: this process represents
the transformation of agricultural products into food
and requires energy for heating, cooling, and electricity.
The amount of energy needed is approximately 50-100
MJ/kg.
•Food cooking: this process involves applying heat to
food. It consumes approximately 5-7 MJ/kg of food.
•Evaporation: this process involves partially removing
water from liquid food via boiling. It consumes approx-
imately 2.5-2.7 MJ/kg.
•Dehydration: this process involves reducing moisture in
food to low levels for improved shelf life by adding one
or more forms of energy to the food.
•Filtration: this process involves separating solids from
a suspension in a liquid via a porous medium, screen or
filter cloth, which retains the solids and allows the liquid
to pass through.
The techniques to save energy on these processes are pre-
sented in the next sections.
III. THERMAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY OPTIONS IN FOOD
PROCESSING
A. WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
Food industry processes have a high demand for energy, and
the main one is heating. Due to some inherent constraints in
processes, a portion of heat is wasted. Heat recovery consists
of using this waste heat by power generation technologies
[24].
Chowdhury et al. [25] analyzes techniques to recover a
portion of heat in the same processes. One strategy is re-
covering heat in processes with heat exchangers, and it was
also validated in [26], where a milk process was analyzed
and demonstrated an increase of 10% in energy efficiency by
rescheduling the process and using heat exchangers. Another
technique used in this industry is recovering heat for other
processes or storing heat. This strategy was implemented in
[27], where photovoltaic energy is used to run the refrig-
eration cycle of a cold chamber when the grid electricity
cost is high and cold temperatures are stored in a phase
change material for use when conditions are suitable. Finally,
a strategy of using heat from a low-temperature process in
a high-temperature process is discussed. All of these pro-
cesses show a clear benefit for energy efficiency. However,
the barriers to implementing these strategies depend on the
policies, social-technical framework, or even fuels used. This
work stated that the key factor to overcoming the barriers
VOLUME 4, 2016 3

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
Food industry scale Fossil fuel
dependence
Capital availability Major food markets Energy intensity
Subsistence level Zero Micro-finance Own use Low
Small family unit Low/medium Limited Local own use Low to high
Small business High Medium Local/regional/export Low to high
Large corporate High Good Regional
process/export
Low to high
TABLE 1: Energy dependency based on the scale of the food industry [23]
are business models. [28] simulated different thermodynamic
fluids to improve the performance of the Organic Rankine
Cycle, which is one of the most used thermodynamic cy-
cles in heat recovery. They analyzed three fluids and three
different heat source temperatures to analyze different-sized
processes. Finally, the results of the fluids performance were
compared in terms of the lowest specific-investment cost and
power output.
B. NOVEL THERMODYNAMICS CYCLES
Some novel thermodynamic cycles are presented that use low
grade heat or RE for heating or cooling processes in the food
industry.
1) Heat Pumps
A heat pump is a thermodynamic equipment that consists
of two heat exchangers, a condenser and an evaporator, a
compressor and a valve. This device uses a heat source that
could come from waste heat or a RE that is transferred in the
evaporator, and with the help of the compressor, it improves
heat conditions, which are transferred with the condenser
[29]. Heat pumps are classified by the temperature of the
heat source in three main categories as described in Table
2 adapted from [30].
Depending of the food industry, heat pumps could be
used directly in certain processes, such as the pasteurization
process. However, other systems require high temperatures,
and in these cases, they are used to upgrade low-quality waste
heat up to 150◦C, which is required in many food indus-
tries. However, adequate working fluids must be selected to
overcome various problems, such as flammability, toxicity,
and required compressor technology [31]. [32] analyzed heat
recovery from a spray-drying process in a milk powder plant
by a combined system with a heat pump and a conventional
air-to-air heat exchanger. The results show that heat pumps
can recover up to 40% of waste heat and lead to 20%
lower energy costs in the operation. Furthermore, heat pumps
represent other benefits as stated in [26], where heat pump
technology was analyzed in the dairy and meat industries in
Germany and showed reduced global gas heating emissions
at up to 52%.
2) Novel Refrigeration Cycles
Novel refrigeration cycles were analyzed in small plants like
smallholder dairy farms or simulated with software.
•Absorption-desorption cycle: it consists of an absorber,
a heat exchanger, a generator or desorber, a condenser,
an evaporator, expansion valves and a pump. This pro-
cess uses an absorption solution and a refrigerant so-
lution, and low-grade waste heat is used in the heat
exchanger in an absorption-desorption process. This
cooling cycle has a low COP because the cycle uses low-
grade heat. Yildirim et al. [33] analyzed the absorption-
desorption cycle in the pasteurization process of the
milk industry and showed that is possible to use low
heat from geothermal for cooling. However, the source
of the heat could be any low-grade waste heat coming
from other processes.
•Adsorption system: it is another mechanical refriger-
ation machine that consists of a condenser, an evap-
orator, a valve and an adsorber, which replaces the
compressor. During adsorption, refrigerant vapor from
the evaporator produces a cooling effect, and in the
desorption period, heat is transported to the absorber
to discharge the refrigerant, which is transferred to the
condenser. Finally, the liquid refrigerant is transferred
to the evaporator in a closed loop [34]. Ndyabawe et
al. [35] analyzed zeolite as an adsorber and biogas
and found that it performed well for a small-size-batch
cooler for milk.
•Ejector refrigeration system: it consists of an ejector, a
condenser, an evaporator, a boiler and a valve. The cycle
starts when the fluid refrigerant is boiled to form vapor
that is transferred to the ejector to join with the vapor
coming from the evaporator. Then, the vapor is pressur-
ized with the ejector and transferred to the condenser,
where the fluid loses heat to the environment. Then,
the fluid is pumped back to the boiler to start over the
cycle. The remaining fluid is transferred to a throttling
valve to reduce the pressure, and in the evaporator, the
fluid is evaporated, and then the cooling cycle takes
place. Finally, the refrigerant vapor joins with the vapor
coming from the boiler and the cycle starts again [34].
Zhang et al. [36] analyzed a new freeze drying system,
and ejectors are used in the equipment. The results show
that heat consumption can be reduced by up to 46.1%
compared with conventional freeze dryers.
3) Heat Pipes
This method consists of using a pipe with two ends as heat
exchangers and a working fluid. One side of the pipe that
has fins works as a condenser, and the other side works as
an evaporator. This method has some advantages, such as al-
most no maintenance and less operational costs compared to
4VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
Heat pump classification
Type Heat source temperature Heat sink temperature
Heat pump 0 - 40◦C 0 - 80◦C
High temperature heat pump 40 - 60◦C 80 - 100◦C
Very high temperature heat pump 60 - 120◦C 100 - 160◦C
TABLE 2: Heat pump classification by temperature
conventional heat transfer methods. However, this method re-
quires analyzing the fluid used, wick type and pipe material.
The heat pipe method works with latent heat, which makes
it efficient for heat transfer with no changes in temperature.
This method could improve cooking and cooling processes
by reducing processing time [34] [29]. Brahim et al. [37]
simulated the performance of a heat pipe, and the results
showed a better performance compared with a conventional
tubular heat exchanger.
4) Hybrid Heating Systems
In general, food processes are too rigid, which increases
the difficulty of implementing the demand respond strategy.
However, when a process relies on different sources of en-
ergy, this issue can be overcome. For example, [6] studied
an option of implementing a low-temperature hybrid heating
system in the dairy industry. The study analyzes additional
sources of energy, such as RE, heat pumps and grid electric-
ity, to generate heat as a supplement to the high-temperature
source of energy. The study demonstrates that it is possible
to implement hybrid-heating systems without affecting the
process. However, this technique requires an analysis of
the constraints, such as RE availability, inherent processes
constraints, and grid prices, which are also analyzed for the
DR method.
C. APPLICATION OF NON-THERMAL FOOD
PROCESSES
Some processes in the food industry were developed with
heat, such as pasteurization; however, these processes could
be developed with other technologies to accomplish the same
goal. For instance, pasteurization processes are generally de-
veloped with heat to destroy harmful microorganisms. How-
ever, other techniques will be presented that can accomplish
the same goal.
1) Food Irradiation
This process consists of applying very high energy electrons
to food for a short time period. These rays are in a wavelength
range from λ= 10−7
−10−12m, which correspond to
ultraviolet rays, X-rays, beam rays and gamma rays. The
emitted irradiation damages the DNA of living cells, thereby
inactivating bacterial and viral microorganisms. Some advan-
tages of this process are that it is a cold process and has lower
costs compared to the conventional pasteurization process
[34]. Bhattacharjee et al. [38] and Bouzarjomehri et al. [39]
analyzed this technology by applying ultraviolet rays to juice
and an electron beam in sausages, respectively, and the results
indicated that they were good sterilization processes that did
not affect the sensory characteristics.
2) Pulsed Electric fields
The process consists of applying an electric field to biological
cells to damage the cell membrane, thereby causing cell
death. This technology presents some benefits; for example,
the temperature of the treated food or beverage is not in-
creased. Nevertheless, the amount of energy required is 100
kJ/kg at 30◦C, which is higher than that of thermal processes
with recovery [34]. Pulsed electric fields could be used to
pasteurize beverages to minimize physical and nutritional
changes [40]. When operating at high temperatures and as-
suming a 95% of heat recovery, the pulsed electric fields
energy input might be reduced to the amount of 20 kJ/kg like
conventional thermal pasteurization [41].
3) High-Pressure processing
This technique applies high pressure to liquids, which causes
the alternation of proteins or lipids, thereby damaging the
membranes of biological cells. However, this process de-
mands 52 kJ/kg to reach a pressure of 600 MPa, which also
increases the temperature of beverages by 3◦C for every 100
MPa of pressure applied. This process was analyzed in [34]
and [38], and the results showed a reduction in microbial
activity. [42] described several health benefits of this tech-
nique compared to conventional pasteurization; however, the
investment cost is still a constraint compared to conventional
pasteurization.
4) Membrane processing
The separation process is quite common in the food industry,
and it changes the concentration or clarity of liquid food,
which is generally performed by evaporation of water. Nev-
ertheless, this activity generally has a high demand of energy,
although separation could be perform by membrane filtration,
which saves up to 50% energy compared with conventional
processes [34]. This process is the most widely applied
nonthermal process in juice processing since it is performed
at low temperatures, thereby conserving the nutrients and
quality of the fruit, and it also leads to increased production
yields [38]. Nazir et al. [43] analyzed the ability of this
technique to recover nutrients from waste food or byproducts
and found that it has wide applicability in the food industry.
D. NOVEL HEATING METHODS
1) Infrared, microwave and radio frequency heating
These techniques use electromagnetic waves to sterilize food.
Infrared radiation exhibits low penetration in food, which is
VOLUME 4, 2016 5

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
why it is used for sterilizing the surfaces of food. However,
its heat transfer coefficient is higher than that of convective
heated air or water. In microwave technology, food needs
to be exposed for a short period of time for sterilization,
although the process leads to the loss of energy in moisture.
Radio frequency heating is a more controlled technique since
the penetration of the wave is greater than that of microwaves
[34]. Guo et al. [44] analyzed the radio frequency heating
process in the food industry, and the results showed a high
potential due to the low cost and other previously mentioned
advantages.
2) Ohmic heating
This method consists of applying an electric current directly
to a beverage to generate heat; therefore, no losses will be
generated due to the conductivity of the material, which is
an advantage compared to other methods. The heat generated
depends on the voltage difference in the field and conductiv-
ity of the beverage, which should be in a range between 0.01
S/m and above 10 S/m. This process has some advantages,
such as ensuring uniform heating, which prevents thermal
damage or nutritional losses [38].
IV. WASTE MANAGEMENT IN FOOD PROCESSING
(WASTE-TO-ENERGY)
Waste management has become crucial due to the grow-
ing problem of natural resource depletion and contaminant
generation. In particular, the concept of waste-to-energy has
gained attention in recent years, as a waste management strat-
egy. Waste-to-energy is the process of transforming waste
into a useful form of energy, such as electricity, heat, or
other type [45]. In agroindustry, waste has become also a
huge problem because it requires especial treatment due to
environmental regulations before disposal. This waste treat-
ment could increase the cost of processes and the energy
demand of this industry. An effective solution to overcoming
these problems is to apply the waste to the energy concept,
which can reduce waste disposal, generate energy for the
agroindustry or provide an energy surplus that can be sold
to other industries. This concept of waste-to-energy is also
widely used in other industries like in waste treatment, where
the main goal of the process is to reduce waste, which is
mainly organic. For instance, some municipal solid waste
plants use plasma gasification technology, where waste un-
dergoes a thermochemical process to generate synthetic gas
used as source of energy [46]. Therefore, plasma gasifi-
cation technology could be used with agriculture residues
to generate heat or electricity [47]. Moreover, the waste
from food industries could offer the possibility to produce,
apart from electricity, byproducts such as single-cell protein,
photosynthesis plant fertilizer, and waste heat [48]. Table 3
describes the main waste-to-energy technologies used in the
agroindustry. Fig.2 depicts the Waste-to-Energy technologies
for food industry.
A. BIODIESEL
This technology consists of transforming vegetable oil into
biodiesel based on several steps. First, oil is subjected to
hydrolysis, where two components are obtained: free fatty
acids (FFAs) and glycerol. Then, the FFAs are subjected to
an esterification process under critical conditions, and finally,
this liquid is filtered to obtain biodiesel [50]. This tech-
nology has been analyzed in several studies because of the
importance of biodiesels in the biofuel production market as
well in the consumption market, especially for transportation.
Hossain et al. [50] and Prussi et al. [51] used edible oil
coming from the food industry and final consumers as the
feedstock and applied a re-esterification process to generate
biodiesel. The results showed that biodiesel from waste has
a similar performance to conventional diesel, which was
analyzed in different types of generators. In addition, in the
study, biodiesel was found to generate fewer emissions than
conventional diesel in certain cases. Hossain et al. [50] used a
different catalyst material in the re-esterification process and
showed an improvement in the process relative to conven-
tional processes.
B. BIOGAS
Another important technology is biogas, which is generated
via an anaerobic process under a temperature generally be-
tween 20 and 60◦C. In this process, organic feedstock is
digested by microorganisms, and several days later, biogas
and sludge is generated. The authors of [53], [54], and [55]
analyzed biogas with different sources of feedstock. The
studies demonstrate the importance of the type of feedstock
and feeding ratio in the process. The analysis in [54] demon-
strates that a plant that uses residues sourced from the vicinity
as feedstock has less impact on the environment and less
cost in biogas generation. Additionally, the location of the
biogas plant is a key factor for achieving positive impacts.
In fact, an adequate location presents more sources for the
transportation of feedstock and possible usage of heat from
factories or residences near the biogas plant. [62] analyzed
different-sized anaerobic digestion plants that used cattle
manure and energy crops in Italy, and the results showed
that the key factors for profitability in such projects are the
manure recovery rate, slurry reuse and cogeneration system.
The importance of this technology was determined in [55],
who analyzed the use of brewery residues and household
organic waste and determined that such technology had the
potential to meet 72% of the energy demand in the brewery
industry or 1% of the energy demand in 27 EU countries.
C. BIOMASS
Biomass is used as fuel for combustion, and is generally sub-
jected to a mechanical pretreatment that removes moisture to
enhance the calorific value of the substrate. Biomass has a
high demand, especially for heating. In [63] was estimated
that in British Columbia in Canada, biomass potential com-
ing from residue crops could reduce up to 2% of GHG. Tech-
nical and economic evaluations of waste management have
6VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
Waste to Energy technologies
Technology Type of Residue Reference
Bio-diesel palm oil, waste cooking oil [49], [50], [51]
Bio-ethanol fruit lignocellulose [52]
Biogas grease trap waste, livestock manure, brewery
residues, household organic waste
[53] [54] [55]
Biomass residue crops, olive mills solid waste, digestate [56] [57] [58]
Pyrolysis swine manure, sugar cane bagasse, rice straw [59] [60] [61]
TABLE 3: Technologies used in agroindustry for Waste to Energy
FIGURE 2: Waste to Energy technologies for food industry.
been previously performed. For example, the authors of [57]
performed a multidisciplinary technical and cost analysis for
the production of olive mill solid waste pellets for the case of
Cyprus. The results indicated that the solid waste of a three-
phase process has less moisture content than that of a two-
phase process. The mean calorific value was 21,645 MJ/kg,
which was between the values observed in other studies.
Cyprus generates 13000 tons of olive solid waste generated
via two processes technologies. The annual estimated energy
potential is 38 GWh in Cyprus. Pellets from olive waste have
been estimated to provide 0.9% of the total energy consumed
in households for heating at 2784 toe, and this sector has
a higher energy demand than industry and agriculture in
Cyprus. Key factors for project viability are the working days
and capacity of the plant. The plant could generate pellets
with a cost of 142 Euro/ton, which is competitive with wood
pellets. Chen et al. [58] analyzed the digestate produced via
anaerobic digestion. This waste went through a granulation
process to obtain a type of pellet. The results showed that
this material has a similar energy potential as wood fuels,
although this material could have higher nitrogen monoxide
emissions. Some examples of waste-to-energy approaches
have also been presented by [62], [64], [65].
D. PYROLYSIS
Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process that consists of ap-
plying heat in the absence of oxygen to organic substrates
to generate energy fuels, such as liquid pyrolytic oil, solid
charcoal and light gases (e.g., hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and methane) [66]. [60] subjected sugarcane
bagasse to a pyrolysis process at temperature between 200
and 300◦C at different residence times. The results showed
an improvement in the substrate, such as a higher carbon
content and a higher heating value of 24.01 MJ/kg. [61] found
an improvement of the thermochemical process using CO2,
which shows an increase of CO formation and suppression
of H2. However, the process requires temperatures above
520◦. Amer et al. [59] analyzed a microwave pretreatment
to reduce the moisture content in substrate in four agriculture
wastes: rice straw, rice husk, sugarcane bagasse and cotton
stalk. The study shows that this pretreatment helps to reach
higher heating values similar to bituminous coal. Dai et al.
[67] estimated that biochar could reduce up to 1.41x106t
CO2ecoming for residue crops in China.
VOLUME 4, 2016 7

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
V. SMART FOOD PROCESSING: POTENTIAL FOR
ELECTRICITY REDUCTION, ACTIVE DEMAND
RESPONSE, AND INDUSTRY 4.0
Several industries are currently trying to reduce their en-
ergy consumption to save costs. In the food industry, sev-
eral processes are used to obtain the end product and the
processes differ depending on the end product. Therefore,
several energy efficiency techniques focus on one or various
processes to reduce energy consumption. In many cases,
energy efficiency could even improve the quality of the end-
products when considering the monitoring of external con-
ditions. For example, in cold rooms, the temperature could
be constant and too low, which limits the quality of the
product. Therefore, reducing the refrigeration consumption
will reduce energy consumption and improve the quality of
the product [68].
A. ENERGY SAVINGS TECHNIQUES
The potential for electricity savings by the type of food
industry is detailed below.
Water heating is responsible for nearly 40% of the total
electricity consumption of dairy farms. Thus, efficient sys-
tems should be implemented to avoid electricity losses [69]–
[71]. Through data envelopment analysis, it is possible to
reduce 12 % the energy consumption and around 12% the
CO2emissions of dairy farms [70]. According to Xu et al.
[71], it is possible to reduce 50-80 % of specific energy
consumption and 9-14 million metric tons of carbon in dairy
industries, with USA having the biggest potential. Other
areas with the potential for reduction include refrigeration,
pumping, air compressors, and other electric machines [18],
[72]. Moreover, the process of milking requires significant
power over short times, which can lead to power peaks in the
distribution systems. Thus, the authors of [73] propose that
the milking starting time should be varied by participating
in different electricity tariffs. The results indicate that cost
savings in electricity could achieve between 33% to 39%
depending on the size of the dairy farm; however, whether the
milking process time could change is difficult to determine
because of the cows and other processes.
For meat production, specific efficiency techniques have
not be found. However, various energy audits demonstrate
that several inefficiencies exist, and fuels are overused; there-
fore, the energy inputs could be limited with the proper
control of energy meters [74]–[77]. For example, electricity
savings could reach up to 24% [78].
Several approaches have been developed to reduce elec-
tricity consumption in the different steps of food processing.
In the case of wines, the technique of cold prefermentation
is a process that gained popularity in recent years, and it
consists of reducing the temperature of the product to an es-
tablished temperature for the process. Then, the temperature
has to be maintained within the considered limits by compen-
sating for fluctuations of temperature that could occur during
the maceration process [79].
Other technology has been considered to optimize the
food defrosting system. In [80], the benefits of two energy
optimization strategies to improve the overall process effi-
ciency of a food defrosting system are studied. Simulation
results show the benefits of the on-line energy optimization
strategies, which significantly increase the overall process
efficiency.
Climate control is another significant source of electricity.
The authors of [81] focus on the optimal operation of energy
systems in greenhouses within the context of smart grids. The
developed models incorporated weather forecasts, electricity
price information, and end-user preferences to minimize the
total energy costs and peak demand charges while consider-
ing important parameters of greenhouse climate control.
Ventilation could also be optimized with new techniques,
such as sequential ventilation. For cheese processing, using
this energy efficiency technique is more convenient not only
for electricity savings but also because the end-product could
have better quality [82], [83].
In food production, machining processes consume a large
amount of energy. Therefore, various techniques have been
proposed to improve this consumption. In [84], an on-line
approach for monitoring machine tools was presented, and
various power reduction experiments were performed to
obtain the management measure that consumed the lowest
power.
B. DEMAND RESPONSE
Demand response (DR) is a technique that motivates changes
in electricity usage of end-use customers depending on the
electricity price, grid reliability or incentivized revenue when
system reliability is jeopardized via the reduction in energy
consumption, transferal of energy consumption to other peri-
ods, or use of distributed energy resources instead of the main
grid [85]. Additionally, DR may facilitate the integration
of Renewable Energy Sources (RESs) and energy storage,
which are unpredictable and inflexible generators, thereby
increasing the flexibility of the overall power system, as
shown in Fig 3. This technique was first considered a solution
for the residential and commercial sector; however, due to
the significant load in the industrial sector, the application
of DR in the industry sector has attracted attention [4], [86].
However, implementing DR in industries is more difficult
because the traditional processes have been considered rigid
[87]; however, previous studies have demonstrated that there
are processes with certain flexibility that may be explored.
Moreover, DR has been evaluated in the food industry.
For example, [88] presented an evaluation and assessment
of DR in the meat industry. The most energy-consuming pro-
cess in this industry is the cooling production and distribution
process, which account for between 45% and 55% of the total
final electricity consumption in the analyzed industry. DR
actions cannot be applied in sensitive production areas and in
sensitive processes directly related to the quality of the final
product. The main production processes in the meat industry
are working rooms, preserving chambers, freezing chambers
8VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
FIGURE 3: Overview of DR in food industries.
and drying lines. In DR, actions that reduce the power and
response time are important. The DR action proposed in this
paper is based on the interruption of the electricity supply
used in cooling production so that the thermal inertia of
the system can maintain both the temperature and humidity
within acceptable limits. In the process, two hour interrup-
tions of 450 kW in the peak period were performed. The
results showed that with DR, savings of 5% of the total
annual cost and power reductions in the range of 50% of
the total peak demand could be achieved in the analyzed
facilities.
Furthermore, [89] demonstrated the considerable potential
of meat industry customers to provide DR flexibility. Effec-
tive competition in electricity markets needs to be enhanced,
including demand response programs that allow customers
to participate in such markets. Flexibility actions include not
consuming energy or shifting energy use to cheaper periods,
and the costs that the customer incurs when a flexibility
action is performed have been analyzed. In the meat industry,
DR actions, such as the interruption of cooling production
and control of cooling distribution in drying rooms, have
been implemented using the inertia of the systems. The
study proves that approximately 6% of the cost of balancing
markets and secondary regulation could have been avoided
using the DR potential of the meat-producing segment. In
[90], the participation of a meat factory in the Spanish tertiary
was also studied by using a parallel particle swarm optimiza-
tion, resulting in an improvement of 40 % of the maximum
profit per unit of reduced energy, significantly improving the
economic performance.
According to previous studies, the implementation of
DR actions must be completely automated (communication,
monitoring and control) to avoid human errors and reduce
the required advance notification time. The notification time
must consider the ramping up and down periods of the
involved processes as well as the preparation and recovery
periods.
Other interesting options for DR in the food industry
correspond to the use of ice storage. An ice storage system
makes ice during off-peak periods to partly or entirely serve
the requirements of on-peak periods [91]. Isolated systems
could consider the integration of DR, PV and ice storage,
in which ice is made during PV generation and used for
storage where PV or other generation is not available [92],
[93]. Since most types of the food industry use refrigeration
machines, producing enough ice during valley periods for
storage and use in peak periods while shutting down the
refrigeration and maintaining the temperature at proper levels
through the produced ice could be advantageous.
C. POTENTIAL OF INDUSTRY 4.0 IN SUSTAINABLE
FOOD PROCESSING
The term Industry 4.0 refers to the fourth big current trend
of industrialization concepts, and it implies the industrial use
of recent trends in electrical, communications, and computer
systems. The main topics of Industry 4.0 include smart facto-
ries, cyber-physical systems, self-organization, new systems
in distribution and procurement, new systems in product
and service development, adaptation of human needs, and
corporate social responsibility, as illustrated in Fig. 4 [94].
In Industry 4.0, two main focuses of research have emerged:
smart factories, which are based on intelligent manufactur-
ing systems and processes and networked distributed pro-
duction facilities; and intelligent production, which focuses
on human-computer interaction, logistics management, 3D
printing and other advanced technologies that can be applied
to the entire industrial process to create a highly flexible,
personalized and networked industrial chain [95]. Thus, In-
dustry 4.0 enables more sustainable and efficient processes
during food processing to cover the growing demands in
food markets and ensure the quality and the quantity of the
products [96], [97].
FIGURE 4: Industry 4.0 Topics.
With intelligent manufacturing, it is expected that ad-
VOLUME 4, 2016 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
vanced robotics and artificial intelligence will be imple-
mented to allow for the precise control of all production lines
[98]. Therefore, possible energy losses could be monitored
to implement solutions immediately and avoid such losses
[99]. For example, the logistics management of Industry 4.0
allows for the safe, secure, and reliable transportation of raw
foods, and the energy of transportation in the factory could
be minimized. The temperature of the equipment, especially
refrigeration equipment, could be controlled and adjusted to
a specific range to avoid temperature losses, thereby reducing
energy bills. Finally, during food processing, some machines
could be working improperly, and Industry 4.0 could enable
fault diagnostics and management to allow for the immediate
repair of machines and avoid long-term losses [100].
VI. RENEWABLE ENERGY IN FOOD PROCESSING
In the new grid, RE is expected to have a larger share
in the total electricity production. Therefore, RE was also
proposed for the supply of energy loads to the food industry.
Photovoltaic (PV) and wind generators are considered suit-
able alternatives to conventional diesel generators or electric
distribution lines. For example, in [101], the RE planning (PV
and wind) of a dairy farm was studied, and it demonstrated
that the introduction of RE could provide a sizeable backup
of 136 GWh/year to the Algerian grid while mitigating 80
million tons of CO2. This work was complemented by [102],
[103], who validated the technical and economic feasibility
of introducing PVs in dairy farms in Algeria. Solar energy
integrated with energy storage could avoid peaks for milking
[104].
Solar energy could also be useful for thermal processes,
such a drying. In rural areas, drying of agricultural products
is performed directly via solar energy. However, it presents
some disadvantages, such as longer drying times, difficulty
controlling the drying process, or contamination. Solar dryers
have emerged as a solution to tackle these issues. These
dryers present proper energy and exergy results, such as the
one analyzed by [105], who successfully dried ghost chili
pepper and sliced ginger. Solar energy could also be useful
for heating water for processes that need it. These solar sys-
tems are already implemented and could be very appropriate
for developing countries and isolated food industries [106].
In particular, the performance of the solar dryers depends on
the solar radiation, and most of the developing countries are
located close to or within the equatorial belt, where the solar
radiation is high, and they can take advantage of this property
[107].
In [108], an existing conventional system in an ice cream
factory in Isparta, Turkey was changed to a RE system. The
processes analyzed in the factory were those that require
heating and cooling, and the study proposed changing the
energy source from grid electricity to heat from a parabolic to
solar collector (PTSC) system. The PTSC system shows up
to 98.56% energy savings compared with the current system.
However, the proposed system has some limitations, such
as the high cost of investment, 8.5-year payback time, and
variations of solar radiation. The PTSC system works in a
low/medium temperature range.
To increase the performance of solar PV in food industries,
it is possible to integrate it in a trigeneration system. These
systems are designated as PV and combined cooling, heating,
and power (PV-CCHP) systems or PV-trigeneartion (PV-
T) systems [109], [110]. Since most of the food industries
require heating and cooling, these systems could improve
the energy efficiency, but they could require up to 25 years
to generate Net profit [111]. Furthermore, the PV-T systems
could include electric storage such as batteries, and pumped
hydro [112]; and thermal storage such as molten salts, phase
change materials, concrete storage tanks [64], [113], [114].
VII. CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN FOOD INDUSTRY
The issues of energy efficiency, environmental protection,
food processing waste management, improvement of pro-
duction quality and safety have attracted increasing atten-
tion in the food industry. Effective energy utilization and
energy sources management in food processing facilities
are desirable for reducing processing costs, saving fossil
energy resources and minimizing environmental impact. The
food processing industry, however, faces several challenges
to develop advanced energy conservation and conversion
technologies. The barriers can be classified as technical
and not technical ones. The technical barriers are mostly
related to the complexities of some food processing sectors,
where cascade, intermittent and inter-connected processes
are implemented, and some energy saving measures should
be integrated with particular attention to the implications in
terms of quality of final product, safety issues, effectiveness
of processes. This is valid, as examples, when it comes to
the optimal setting of processing temperature levels or waste
heat recovery options to mimimize energy consumption and
at the same time to secure the end products quality standards.
Other barriers regard the difficulties and/or profitability to
recover low temperature and/or intermittent/seasonal dis-
charged heat, which is often available in such processes.
In addition, environmental/amenity issues are often major
drawbacks, and these aspects can be related for instance to
the use of waste by products for on site energy production,
to space/logistic constraints arising from the location and op-
eration of renewable energy and energy saving technologies
(i.e. solar panels, biomass storage and biomass logistics of
supply). The non technical barriers mostly regard the limited
specific know how, knowledge and skills of food sector
operators in energy saving technologies, which are out of the
core business of the industrial operators. In the following, a
description of the typical challenges to energy efficiency in
food industry is provided, with comments on the most viable
options to overcome these issues. The challenges and barriers
to energy efficiency in food industry could be divided into the
following aspects: economic, technological, environmental,
and regulatory.
10 VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
A. ECONOMIC
The industrial entrepreneur perception towards innovative
integrated and sustainable energy saving solutions, which are
not well known and understood, may be a major barrier, if the
options are considered too risky. Energy efficiency enables
long-term profits for food processing companies, however, in
the short term they have to invest in additional equipment to
implement the presented strategies. Due to important market
competition between food processing companies, it is not
possible to assume that energy efficiency strategies will be
implemented alone, and therefore there is a need of economic
incentives from governments [18]. Observe also that many
incentives fail to persuade industrial customers to participate
since the costs of modifying the processes could be higher
than the incentives for adopting energy efficiency strategies.
The benefits of energy efficiency in the food industry
could differ significantly, depending of the size and kind of
processes of the industry. Thus, a first evaluation needs to be
performed to evaluate the possible benefits. In this evalua-
tion, some uncertainties appear, which could lead to wrong
evaluations and the benefits could results lower, which could
discourage other customers to partipate in these strategies.
B. TECHNOLOGICAL
Food industry is a sector with high possibilities for improve-
ment since reduced percentages of energy savings involve
large amounts of energy. Due to the technologies commonly
used in this type of industry, thermal energy, electrical energy
and water use are the main technologies on which to focus
efficiency actions. In all processes in which thermal energy is
used, there are important savings opportunities: improvement
in the processes, in the equipment and the specific treatment
of the products that is made; improvement in the process
as a whole. Global solutions must be proposed that provide
reductions in consumption. For example, in many cases, there
is a gas boiler to generate heat and an air-water chiller to
obtain cold. The use of a water-water thermal machine that
generates cold and heat simultaneously has higher energy ef-
ficiency. In processes in which electric power is used directly,
they are also susceptible to significant savings: improving
equipment performance, the use of drives in all processes that
feed motors, making a record of consumption, that enables
subsequent analysis of opportunities to shut down unnec-
essary equipment, among others. The reuse of all materials
and waste energy is essential (waste-to-energy). Finally, the
change to industry 4.0 will enable the measurement of many
variables of the processes, energy consumption. It is crucial
to make a historical data base of the variables that enables
a later analysis of the information. The search for synergy
between several actions to be taken is crucial and is what will
cause the improvement in energy efficiency to be greater.
Although various opportunities exist, organizational and
managing issues related to the installation of energy con-
sumption measurement systems, or planned stop of produc-
tion processes to install energy saving technologies, are often
remarkable not technical barriers, in particular considering
that the entrepreneurial focus is mostly on the food pro-
duction business. The perception of potential influence of
energy saving intervention on the effectiveness of the food
processing and quality of final products constitute further
drawbacks. Most of the processes are complex and difficult to
be changed. Moreover, even in some cases the product quality
was improved such as the cheese [82], [83], setting parame-
ters modulation to save energy consumption can negatively
influence end product quality. Finally, as previously stated,
some food production processes are very rigid due to end
quality, and hence it is difficult to accommodate renewable
energy and energy saving options.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL
There is a clear relation between agriculture and environ-
mental problems like greenhouse gas emissions. Where this
industry represents the second largest GHG emitter as is
mentioned in [115]. On the other hand, renewable energy
and energy efficiency contribute to reduce GHG emissions.
However, a challenge to assess environmental improvements
by energy efficiency is the method used, which has some un-
certainties to quantify their impacts. For instance, greenhouse
gases are quantified based on carbon foot print,and some
guidelines are used like IPCC. However, these guidelines
are subjective and non universal as is mentioned in [16].
Slorach et al. [116] analyzed how to reduce environmental
impacts from food waste in UK using different scenarios.
Although some technologies where analyzed, the best way
to reduce environmental impacts was to reduce 2% food
waste generation, showing that new technologies has less
contribution to overcome environmental impacts.
D. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY
Permitting issues and legislative aspects are also relevant
barriers in the case of integration of complex technologies,
including biomass waste to energy technologies, consum-
ing both endogenous and external bio-fuel resources. The
financial aspects, and the relatively high investment costs of
some technological options are other typical non technical
barriers, considering that the investment horizon of energy
saving measures can be longer than what expected/interesting
for the industrial operators. These legislative and regulatory
issues limit the growth of energy efficiency initiatives in the
industries, especially in the developing countries. The instal-
lation of RE or cogeneration plants, the tools for industry
4.0, or implementation of DR programs are limited by the
local or national electric companies regulations. For example,
in countries where there is no electricity markets, these
strategies could not be implemented. Moreover, the benefits
of the governments for food industries for GHG reduction
must be clear to encourage to implement energy efficiency
strategies. Some particular standards for communications
need to be adopted in the energy market to facilitate the
communication between the different agents participating in
energy efficiency strategies. Finally, since many food indus-
tries are small, an administrative burden could exist. Hence,
VOLUME 4, 2016 11

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
it is crucial to include in the energy market new entities such
as aggregators for DR [4].
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The food industry is a large energy consumer and GhG
emitter. Assessing the challenges for the future is important
since the expected growth in food demand will not be propor-
tional to the growth in energy capacity. Therefore, significant
initiatives for energy efficiency need to be developed.
Thus, in this paper, different energy efficiency strategies
in the food industry have been presented. A background
on the classification of food processing technologies was
first presented, with a focus on energy-consuming tech-
nologies. Then, typical energy efficiency opportunities were
introduced. Novel trends for the food industry were also
discussed, such as waste-to-energy, demand response, and
Industry 4.0. The use of RE and energy storage is becoming
crucial for providing electricity or thermal energy in peak
periods.
Although typical and new trends in energy efficiency for
food processing appear to represent promising pathways to
decarbonize the food processing sector, the actual implemen-
tation is still limited. Proper policies must be developed to
better encourage users to adopt energy efficiency strategies.
First, many industries do not feel comfortable changing
their processes; therefore, incentives for demand flexibilities
must be provided. Moreover, incentives must be provided to
purchase technologies associated with smart food processing
that are profitable over the long-term.
In the future, a gap will be exist between the food produc-
tion (that will increase by 70%) and the energy sector, so it
is crucial that important investments must be performed in
the energy sector. To mitigate GHG emissions, investments
in RE for generation may be achieved. Furthermore, proper
standards for various strategies of energy efficiency may be
developed to obtain significant energy savings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper belongs to the project SIS.JCG.19.01, which
belongs to Universidad de las Américas - Ecuador.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Halpin, “Advancing standards in energy efficiency,” IEEE Ind. Appl.
Mag., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 78–79, 2013.
[2] M. J. Li and W. Q. Tao, “Review of methodologies and polices for
evaluation of energy efficiency in high energy-consuming industry,”
Appl. Energy, vol. 187, pp. 203–215, 2017.
[3] J. J. Stroker, “What’s the real cost of higher efficiency?” IEEE Ind. Appl.
Mag., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 32–37, 2003.
[4] M. H. Shoreh, P. Siano, M. Shafie-khah, V. Loia, and J. P. Catalão, “A
survey of industrial applications of Demand Response,” Electr. Power
Syst. Res., vol. 141, pp. 31–49, 2016.
[5] L. Fabbriani and R. Calili, “Proposal of energy efficiency policies for
food and beverage industry in Brazil,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, vol. 10,
no. 6, p. 065903, 2018.
[6] G. Schumm, M. Philipp, F. Schlosser, J. Hesselbach, T. G. Walmsley, and
M. J. Atkins, “Hybrid heating system for increased energy efficiency and
flexible control of low temperature heat,” Energy Effic., vol. 11, no. 5, pp.
1117–1133, 2018.
[7] R. Sperberg, R. Kniss, and T. Ruegg, “Energy Efficiency in California
Cement Plants: Energy Savings Potential Realized by Accessing Utility
Energy-Efficiency Program Resources,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 24,
no. 4, pp. 12–16, 2018.
[8] Y. Xu and J. Szmerekovsky, “System dynamic modeling of energy
savings in the US food industry,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 165, pp. 13–26,
2017.
[9] M. Özilgen, “Energy utilization and carbon dioxide emission during
production of snacks,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 112, pp. 2601–2612, 2016.
[10] M. Özilgen, “Nutrition and production related energies and exergies of
foods,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 96, no. August, pp. 275–295,
2018.
[11] J. Bundschuh, G. Chen, and S. Mushtaq, “Towards a sustainable energy
technologies based agriculture,” in Sustain. Energy Solut. Agric. ROUT-
LEDGE in association with GSE Research, 2014, vol. 3, no. 15, pp. 3–15.
[12] European Commission, “Energy balancesheets 2015
data – Eurostat, 2017.” [Online]. Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/8113778/KS-EN-
17-001- EN-N.pdf/99cc20f1-cb11-4886-80f9-43ce0ab7823c
[13] B. Degerli, S. Nazir, E. Sorgüven, B. Hitzmann, and M. Özilgen, “As-
sessment of the energy and exergy efficiencies of farm to fork grain
cultivation and bread making processes in Turkey and Germany,” Energy,
vol. 93, pp. 421–434, 2015.
[14] B. Lin and X. Xie, “Factor substitution and rebound effect in China’s
food industry,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 105, pp. 20–29, 2015.
[15] M. M. Kling and I. J. Hough, “The American Carbon Footprint: Un-
derstanding your food’s impact on climate change,” Bright. Planet, Inc,
2010.
[16] S. N. Kumar and B. Chakabarti, “Energy and carbon footprint of food
industry,” in Energy footprints food Text. Sect. Springer, 2019, pp. 19–
44.
[17] M. C. Bozchalui, C. A. Cañizares, and K. Bhattacharya, “Optimal energy
management of greenhouses in smart grids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 827–835, 2015.
[18] R. E. H. Sims, “Global energy resources, supply and demand, energy
security and on-farm energy efficiency,” Sustain. Energy Solut. Agric.
Brundschuh, J., Chen, G., Eds, 2014.
[19] F. Shrouf and G. Miragliotta, “Energy management based on Internet
of Things: Practices and framework for adoption in production
management,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 100, pp. 235–246, 2015.
[20] K. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Sun, S. Guo, and J. Wu, “Green Industrial
Internet of Things Architecture: An Energy-Efficient Perspective,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 48–54, 2016.
[21] A. Ladha-Sabur, S. Bakalis, P. J. Fryer, and E. Lopez-Quiroga, “Mapping
energy consumption in food manufacturing,” Trends Food Sci. Technol.,
vol. 86, no. June 2017, pp. 270–280, 2019.
[22] L. Wang, Energy Conservation In Power And Electrical Systems, 2008.
[23] FAO, “Energy-smart food for people and climate. Issue Paper,” Rome-
Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, p. 66, 2011.
[24] T. C. Hung, “Waste heat recovery of organic Rankine cycle using dry
fluids,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 539–553, 2001.
[25] J. I. Chowdhury, Y. Hu, I. Haltas, N. Balta-Ozkan, G. Matthew, and
L. Varga, “Reducing industrial energy demand in the UK: A review of
energy efficiency technologies and energy saving potential in selected
sectors,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 94, no. June, pp. 1153–1178,
2018.
[26] M. Philipp, G. Schumm, P. Heck, F. Schlosser, R. H. Peesel, T. G.
Walmsley, and M. J. Atkins, “Increasing energy efficiency of milk
product batch sterilisation,” Energy, vol. 164, pp. 995–1010, 2018.
[27] S. Rosiek, M. S. Romero-Cano, A. M. Puertas, and F. J. Batlles,
“Industrial food chamber cooling and power system integrated
with renewable energy as an example of power grid sustainability
improvement,” Renew. Energy, vol. 138, pp. 697–708, aug 2019.
[28] M. T. White, O. A. Oyewunmi, M. A. Chatzopoulou, A. M. Pantaleo,
A. J. Haslam, and C. N. Markides, “Computer-aided working-fluid
design, thermodynamic optimisation and thermoeconomic assessment of
ORC systems for waste-heat recovery,” Energy, vol. 161, pp. 1181–1198,
2018.
[29] H. Jouhara, N. Khordehgah, S. Almahmoud, B. Delpech, A. Chauhan,
and S. A. Tassou, “Waste heat recovery technologies and applications,”
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, vol. 6, no. April, pp.
268–289, 2018.
[30] C. Arpagaus, F. Bless, M. Uhlmann, J. Schiffmann, and S. S. Bertsch,
“High temperature heat pumps: Market overview, state of the art, research
12 VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
status, refrigerants, and application potentials,” Energy, vol. 152, pp. 985–
1010, 2018.
[31] G. F. Frate, L. Ferrari, and U. Desideri, “Analysis of suitability ranges
of high temperature heat pump working fluids,” Applied Thermal
Engineering, vol. 150, no. January, pp. 628–640, 2019.
[32] J. F. Wang, C. Brown, and D. J. Cleland, “Heat pump heat recovery
options for food industry dryers,” International Journal of Refrigeration,
vol. 86, pp. 48–55, 2018.
[33] N. Yildirim and S. Genc, “Thermodynamic analysis of a milk
pasteurization process assisted by geothermal energy,” Energy, vol. 90,
pp. 987–996, 10 2015.
[34] L. Wang, “Energy efficiency technologies for sustainable agriculture and
food processing,” in Sustain. Energy Solut. Agric. ROUTLEDGE in
association with GSE Research, 2014, vol. 97, no. 122, pp. 97–122.
[35] K. Ndyabawe, R. Brush, R. E. Ssonko, and W. S. Kisaalita, “Biogas-
powered evaporative cooling for smallholder dairy farmers’ evening
milk: Zeolite characterization and regeneration,” Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, vol. 34, no. April, pp. 126–132, 2019.
[36] S. Zhang, J. Luo, Q. Wang, and G. Chen, “Step utilization of energy
with ejector in a heat driven freeze drying system,” Energy, vol. 164, pp.
734–744, 2018.
[37] T. Brahim and A. Jemni, “Numerical investigation of roll heat pipe type
for heat exchangers thermal management,” Applied Thermal Engineer-
ing, vol. 90, pp. 638–647, 2015.
[38] C. Bhattacharjee, V. K. Saxena, and S. Dutta, “Novel thermal and
non-thermal processing of watermelon juice,” Trends in Food Science
and Technology, vol. 93, no. April, pp. 234–243, 2019.
[39] F. Bouzarjomehri, V. Dad, B. Hajimohammadi, S. Shirmardi, and
A. Yousefi-Ghaleh Salimi, “The effect of electron-beam irradiation on
microbiological properties and sensory characteristics of sausages,” Ra-
diation Physics and Chemistry, vol. 168, 2020.
[40] D. Gabri´
c, F. Barba, S. Roohinejad, S. M. T. Gharibzahedi, M. Rado-
jˇ
cin, P. Putnik, and D. Bursa´
c Kovaˇ
cevi´
c, “Pulsed electric fields as
an alternative to thermal processing for preservation of nutritive and
physicochemical properties of beverages: A review,” Journal of Food
Process Engineering, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2018.
[41] S. Toepfl, A. Mathys, V. Heinz, and D. Knorr, “Potential of high
hydrostatic pressure and pulsed electric fields for energy efficient and
environmentally friendly food processing,” Food Rev. Int., vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 405–423, 2006.
[42] H.-w. Huang, C.-p. Hsu, and C.-y. Wang, “ScienceDirect Healthy
expectations of high hydrostatic pressure treatment in food processing
industry,” Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, no. November, 2019.
[43] A. Nazir, K. Khan, A. Maan, R. Zia, L. Giorno, and K. Schroën,
“Membrane separation technology for the recovery of nutraceuticals
from food industrial streams,” Trends in Food Science and Technology,
vol. 86, no. June 2018, pp. 426–438, 2019.
[44] C. Guo, A. Mujumdar, and M. Zhang, “New Development in Radio Fre-
quency Heating for Fresh Food Processing: a Review,” Food Engineering
Reviews, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 29–43, 2019.
[45] M. Philipp, G. Schumm, P. Heck, F. Schlosser, R. H. Peesel, T. G.
Walmsley, and M. J. Atkins, “Increasing energy efficiency of milk
product batch sterilisation,” Energy, vol. 164, pp. 995–1010, 2018.
[46] F. Rojas-Perez, J. A. Castillo-Benavides, G. Richmond-Navarro, and
E. Zamora, “CFD Modeling of Plasma Gasification Reactor for Munici-
pal Solid Waste,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 2435–2444,
2018.
[47] M. Pourali, “Application of plasma gasification technology in waste
to energy-challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 125–130, 2010.
[48] C. Palanichamy, N. Sundar Babu, and C. Nadarajan, “Municipal solid
waste fueled power generation for India,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 556–563, 2002.
[49] R. Khatun, M. I. H. Reza, M. Moniruzzaman, and Z. Yaakob, “Sustain-
able oil palm industry: The possibilities,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 76, no. March 2017, pp. 608–619, 2017.
[50] M. N. Hossain, M. S. Ullah Siddik Bhuyan, A. H. Md Ashraful Alam,
and Y. C. Seo, “Biodiesel from hydrolyzed waste cooking oil using
a S-ZrO2/SBA-15 super acid catalyst under sub-critical conditions,”
Energies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2018.
[51] M. Prussi, D. Chiaramonti, L. Recchia, F. Martelli, F. Guidotti, and
L. Pari, “Alternative feedstock for the biodiesel and energy production:
The OVEST project,” Energy, vol. 58, pp. 2–8, 2013.
[52] J. S. Van Dyk, R. Gama, D. Morrison, S. Swart, and B. I.
Pletschke, “Food processing waste: Problems, current management and
prospects for utilisation of the lignocellulose component through enzyme
synergistic degradation,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 26, pp.
521–531, 2013.
[53] Z. Zhu, M. K. Hsueh, and Q. He, “Enhancing biomethanation of
municipal waste sludge with grease trap waste as a co-substrate,” Renew.
Energy, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1802–1807, 2011.
[54] M. Muradin, K. Joachimiak-Lechman, and Z. Foltynowicz, “Evaluation
of Eco-Efficiency of Two Alternative Agricultural Biogas Plants,” Appl.
Sci., vol. 8, no. 11, p. 2083, 2018.
[55] H. Lorenz, P. Fischer, B. Schumacher, and P. Adler, “Current EU-27
technical potential of organic waste streams for biogas and energy
production,” Waste Manag., vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2434–2448, 2013.
[56] L. Hamelin, M. Borze¸cka, M. Kozak, and R. Pudełko, “A spatial ap-
proach to bioeconomy: Quantifying the residual biomass potential in the
EU-27,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 100, no. November 2018, pp.
127–142, 2019.
[57] E. Christoforou, A. Kylili, and P. A. Fokaides, “Technical and
economical evaluation of olive mills solid waste pellets,” Renew. Energy,
vol. 96, pp. 33–41, 2016.
[58] H. Chen, E. G. Forbes, J. Archer, O. De Priall, M. Allen, C. Johnston,
and D. Rooney, “Production and characterization of granules from
agricultural wastes and comparison of combustion and emission results
with wood based fuels,” Fuel, vol. 256, no. August, p. 115897, 2019.
[59] M. Amer, M. Nour, M. Ahmed, S. Ookawara, S. Nada, and A. Elwardany,
“The effect of microwave drying pretreatment on dry torrefaction of
agricultural biomasses,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 286, no. April, p.
121400, 2019.
[60] S. Kanwal, N. Chaudhry, S. Munir, and H. Sana, “Effect of torrefaction
conditions on the physicochemical characterization of agricultural waste
(sugarcane bagasse),” Waste Management, vol. 88, pp. 280–290, 2019.
[61] D. J. Lee, K. H. Jeong, D. H. Lee, S. H. Lee, M. W. Jung, Y. N. Jang,
G. G. Jo, J. H. Kwag, H. Yi, Y. K. Park, and E. E. Kwon, “Catalytic
pyrolysis of swine manure using CO2 and steel slag,” Environment
International, vol. 133, no. October, p. 105204, 2019.
[62] A. Pantaleo, B. D. Gennaro, and N. Shah, “Assessment of optimal size
of anaerobic co-digestion plants: An application to cattle farms in the
province of Bari (Italy),” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 20, pp.
57–70, 2013.
[63] H. Wang, S. Zhang, X. Bi, and R. Clift, “Greenhouse gas emission
reduction potential and cost of bioenergy in British Columbia, Canada,”
Energy Policy, vol. 138, no. July 2019, p. 111285, 2020.
[64] A. M. Pantaleo, J. Fordham, O. A. Oyewunmi, P. De Palma, and
C. N. Markides, “Integrating cogeneration and intermittent waste-heat
recovery in food processing: Microturbines vs. ORC systems in the
coffee roasting industry,” Appl. Energy, vol. 225, no. January, pp.
782–796, 2018.
[65] W. S. Ho, H. Hashim, J. S. Lim, C. T. Lee, K. C. Sam, and S. T. Tan,
“Waste Management Pinch Analysis (WAMPA): Application of Pinch
Analysis for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction in municipal
solid waste management,” Appl. Energy, vol. 185, pp. 1481–1489, 2017.
[66] M. Windows, M. Corporation, K. Hori, and A. Sakajiri, Sustainable Food
Systems from Agriculture to Industry.
[67] Y. Dai, H. Zheng, Z. Jiang, and B. Xing, “Comparison of different crop
residue-based technologies for their energy production and air pollutant
emission,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 707, p. 136122, 2020.
[68] J. Mlynarczyk, “Investissements, consommation d’énergie, pertes de
masse et de qualité en entreposage frigorifique á basse température,” Int.
J. Refrig., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 367–370, 1984.
[69] L. P. de Lima, G. B. d. D. Ribeiro, and R. Perez, “The energy mix and
energy efficiency analysis for Brazilian dairy industry,” J. Clean. Prod.,
vol. 181, pp. 209–216, 2018.
[70] H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, D. Safarzadeh, E. Ahmadi, and A. Nabavi-
Pelesaraei, “Optimization of energy consumption of dairy farms using
data envelopment analysis – A case study: Qazvin city of Iran,” J. Saudi
Soc. Agric. Sci., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 217–228, 2018.
[71] T. Xu and J. Flapper, “Reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
from global dairy processing facilities,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 1,
pp. 234–247, 2011.
[72] P. Shine, T. Scully, J. Upton, L. Shalloo, and M. D. Murphy, “Electricity
& direct water consumption on Irish pasture based dairy farms: A
statistical analysis,” Appl. Energy, vol. 210, pp. 529–537, 2018.
VOLUME 4, 2016 13

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
[73] J. Upton, M. Murphy, L. Shalloo, P. W. Groot Koerkamp, and I. J. De
Boer, “Assessing the impact of changes in the electricity price structure
on dairy farm energy costs,” Appl. Energy, vol. 137, pp. 1–8, 2015.
[74] C. A. Ramírez, M. Patel, and K. Blok, “How much energy to process
one pound of meat? A comparison of energy use and specific energy
consumption in the meat industry of four European countries,” Energy,
vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2047–2063, 2006.
[75] M. D. Heidari, M. Omid, and A. Akram, “Energy efficiency and
econometric analysis of broiler production farms,” Energy, vol. 36,
no. 11, pp. 6536–6541, 2011.
[76] E. Ghafoori, P. C. Flynn, and M. D. Checkel, “Global warming impact
of electricity generation from beef cattle manure: A life cycle assessment
study,” Int. J. Green Energy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257–270, 2006.
[77] D. Skunca, I. Tomasevic, I. Nastasijevic, V. Tomovic, and I. Djekic,
“Life cycle assessment of the chicken meat chain,” J. Clean. Prod., vol.
184, pp. 440–450, 2018.
[78] J. Nunes, P. D. Silva, L. Andrade, and P. D. Gaspar, “Key points on the
energy sustainable development of the food industry – Case study of the
Portuguese sausages industry,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 57, pp.
393–411, may 2016.
[79] R. Celorrio, E. Martínez, J. C. Saenz-Díez, E. Jiménez, and J. Blanco,
“Methodology to decrease the energy demands in wine production using
cold pre-fermentation,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 117, pp. 177–185,
2015.
[80] C. Damour, M. Hamdi, C. Josset, B. Auvity, and L. Boillereaux, “Energy
analysis and optimization of a food defrosting system,” Energy, vol. 37,
no. 1, pp. 562–570, 2012.
[81] M. C. Bozchalui, C. A. Cañizares, and K. Bhattacharya, “Optimal op-
eration of climate control systems of produce storage facilities in smart
grids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 351–359, 2015.
[82] G. Corrieu, M. N. Leclercq-Perlat, D. Picque, J. P. Canal, and B. Perret,
“Local air velocity, a key factor governing the Raclette cheese mass
loss in an industrial ripening room,” J. Food Process Eng., no. May, p.
e12822, 2018.
[83] G. Corrieu, B. Perret, A. Kakouri, D. Pappas, and J. Samelis, “Positive
effects of sequential air ventilation on cooked hard Graviera cheese
ripening in an industrial ripening room,” J. Food Eng., vol. 222, pp.
162–168, 2018.
[84] S. Hu, F. Liu, Y. He, and T. Hu, “An on-line approach for energy
efficiency monitoring of machine tools,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 27, pp.
133–140, 2012.
[85] P. Siano, “Demand response and smart grids—A survey,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 30, pp. 461–478, 2013.
[86] J. Rodríguez-García, C. Álvarez-Bel, J.-F. Carbonell-Carretero,
M. Alcázar-Ortega, and E. Peñalvo-López, “A novel tool for the
evaluation and assessment of demand response activities in the industrial
sector,” Energy, vol. 113, pp. 1136–1146, 2016.
[87] M. Shafie-khah, P. Siano, J. Aghaei, M. A. S. Masoum, F. F. Li, and
J. P. S. Catalao, “Comprehensive Review of the Recent Advances in
Industrial and Commercial DR,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol.
3203, no. c, pp. 1–1, 2019.
[88] M. Alcázar-Ortega, C. Álvarez-Bel, G. Escrivá-Escrivá, and A. Domijan,
“Evaluation and assessment of demand response potential applied to the
meat industry,” Appl. Energy, vol. 92, pp. 84–91, 2012.
[89] M. Alcázar-Ortega, C. Álvarez-Bel, A. Domijan, and G. Escrivá-Escrivá,
“Economic and environmental evaluation of customers’ flexibility
participating in operation markets: Application to the meat industry,”
Energy, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 368–379, 2012.
[90] J. Rodriguez-Garcia, D. Ribo-Perez, C. Alvarez-Bel, and E. Penalvo-
Lopez, “Maximizing the profit for industrial customers of providing
operation services in Electric Power Systems via a Parallel Particle
Swarm Optimization algorithm,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 1–1, 2020.
[91] F. Sehar, S. Rahman, and M. Pipattanasomporn, “Impacts of ice storage
on electrical energy consumptions in office buildings,” Energy Build.,
vol. 51, pp. 255–262, 2012.
[92] F. Sehar, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “An energy management
model to study energy and peak power savings from PV and storage
in demand responsive buildings,” Appl. Energy, vol. 173, pp. 406–417,
2016.
[93] C. C. Lo, S. H. Tsai, and B. S. Lin, “Ice storage air-conditioning system
simulation with dynamic electricity pricing: A demand response study,”
Energies, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–16, 2016.
[94] H. Lasi, P. Fettke, H. G. Kemper, T. Feld, and M. Hoffmann, “Industry
4.0,” Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 239–242, 2014.
[95] K. Zhou, T. Liu, and L. Zhou, “Industry 4.0: Towards future industrial
opportunities and challenges,” 2015 12th Int. Conf. Fuzzy Syst. Knowl.
Discov. FSKD 2015, pp. 2147–2152, 2016.
[96] A. Luque, M. E. Peralta, A. de las Heras, and A. Córdoba, “State of the
Industry 4.0 in the Andalusian food sector,” Procedia Manuf., vol. 13,
pp. 1199–1205, 2017.
[97] O. O. Ojo, S. Shah, A. Coutroubis, M. T. Jimenez, and Y. M. Ocana,
“Potential Impact of Industry 4.0 in Sustainable Food Supply Chain Envi-
ronment,” 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Technol. Manag. Oper. Decis. ICTMOD
2018, pp. 172–177, 2018.
[98] N. Z. Noor Hasnan and Y. M. Yusoff, “Short review: Application Areas
of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Food Processing Sector,” 2018 IEEE 16th
Student Conf. Res. Dev. SCOReD 2018, pp. 1–6, 2018.
[99] H. S. Kang, J. Y. Lee, S. Choi, H. Kim, J. H. Park, J. Y. Son, B. H. Kim,
and S. D. Noh, “Smart manufacturing: Past research, present findings,
and future directions,” Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. - Green Technol., vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 111–128, 2016.
[100] N. Mohamed, J. Al-Jaroodi, and S. Lazarova-Molnar, “Leveraging the
Capabilities of Industry 4.0 for Improving Energy Efficiency in Smart
Factories,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 18 008–18020, 2019.
[101] T. Nacer, A. Hamidat, and O. Nadjemi, “A comprehensive method to
assess the feasibility of renewable energy on Algerian dairy farms,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 112, pp. 3631–3642, 2016.
[102] T. Nacer, A. Hamidat, O. Nadjemi, and M. Bey, “Feasibility study of grid
connected photovoltaic system in family farms for electricity generation
in rural areas,” Renew. Energy, vol. 96, pp. 305–318, 2016.
[103] L. Loukarfi, M. Missoum, K. Abdeladim, A. Hamidat, H. Maammeur,
and T. Nacer, “Performance investigation of grid-connected PV systems
for family farms: case study of North-West of Algeria,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 78, no. December 2015, pp. 1208–1220, 2017.
[104] C. Houston, S. Gyamfi, and J. Whale, “Evaluation of energy efficiency
and renewable energy generation opportunities for small scale dairy
farms: A case study in Prince Edward Island, Canada,” Renew. Energy,
vol. 67, pp. 20–29, 2014.
[105] D. K. Rabha, P. Muthukumar, and C. Somayaji, “Energy and exergy
analyses of the solar drying processes of ghost chilli pepper and ginger,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 105, pp. 764–773, 2017.
[106] A. Allouhi, Y. Agrouaz, M. Benzakour Amine, S. Rehman, M. S.
Buker, T. Kousksou, A. Jamil, and A. Benbassou, “Design optimization
of a multi-temperature solar thermal heating system for an industrial
process,” Appl. Energy, vol. 206, no. May, pp. 382–392, 2017.
[107] A. R. Eswara and M. Ramakrishnarao, “Solar energy in food processing
- A critical appraisal,” J. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 209–227,
2013.
[108] O. Kizilkan, A. Kabul, and I. Dincer, “Development and performance
assessment of a parabolic trough solar collector-based integrated system
for an ice-cream factory,” Energy, vol. 100, pp. 167–176, 2016.
[109] F. Immovilli, A. Bellini, C. Bianchini, and G. Franceschini, “Solar tri-
generation for residential applications, a feasible alternative to traditional
microcogeneration and trigeneration plants,” Conf. Rec. - IAS Annu.
Meet. (IEEE Ind. Appl. Soc., pp. 1–8, 2008.
[110] A. Nosrat and J. M. Pearce, “Dispatch strategy and model for hybrid
photovoltaic and trigeneration power systems,” Appl. Energy, vol. 88,
no. 9, pp. 3270–3276, 2011.
[111] F. Basrawi, T. Yamada, and S. Obara, “Economic and environmental
based operation strategies of a hybrid photovoltaic-microgas turbine
trigeneration system,” Appl. Energy, vol. 121, pp. 174–183, 2014.
[112] N. Destro, A. Benato, A. Stoppato, and A. Mirandola, “Components
design and daily operation optimization of a hybrid system with energy
storages,” Energy, vol. 117, pp. 569–577, 2016.
[113] S. Rosiek, M. S. Romero-Cano, A. M. Puertas, and F. J. Batlles,
“Industrial food chamber cooling and power system integrated
with renewable energy as an example of power grid sustainability
improvement,” Renew. Energy, vol. 138, pp. 697–708, 2019.
[114] M. Lantz and P. Börjesson, “Greenhouse gas and energyassessment of the
biogas from co-digestion injected into the natural gas grid: A Swedish
case-study including effects on soil properties,” Renew. Energy, vol. 71,
pp. 387–395, 2014.
[115] H. Qiao, F. Zheng, H. Jiang, and K. Dong, “The greenhouse effect of the
agriculture-economic growth-renewable energy nexus: Evidence from
G20 countries,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 671, pp. 722–731, 2019.
[116] P. C. Slorach, H. K. Jeswani, R. Cuéllar-Franca, and A. Azapagic,
“Assessing the economic and environmental sustainability of household
14 VOLUME 4, 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979077, IEEE Access
J.-M. Clairand et al.: Review of Energy Efficiency Technologies in the Food Industry: Trends, Barriers, and Opportunities
food waste management in the UK: Current situation and future
scenarios,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 710, p. 135580, 2019.
JEAN-MICHEL CLAIRAND (S’16,M’18) was
born in Quito, Ecuador, in 1990. He received the
M.Sc. degree from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure
de l’Electronique et Ses Applications (ENSEA),
Cergy-Pontoise, France, in 2014, and the Ph.D.
degree in Industrial Production Engineering from
Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain in 2018.
He worked in Empresa Eléctrica Quito in 2014.
He was an international visiting graduate student
at the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering at the University of Waterloo, Canada, from 2017 to 2018. He has
been lecturer in Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador, from 2014
to 2017, and assistant professor since 2018. He is also Visiting Researcher
at the Department of Agro-environmental sciences of the Università degli
Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Italy in 2019. His research interests include electric
vehicles, smart grid optimization, energy efficieny, and microgrids.
MARCO BRICEÑO-LEÓN was born in Quito,
Ecuador, in 1986. He received the bachelor degree
in mechanical engineering from the Universidad
de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Ecuador, in 2006,
and the M.Sc. degree in Renewable Energy from
the Carl Von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg,
Germany, in 2015. He worked between 2011 and
2013 in the energy sector in EPC companies. He
has been lecturer in Universidad de las Américas,
Quito, Ecuador, since 2017 to present. He is cur-
rently working toward the Ph.D. degree in Industrial Production Engineering
at the Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. His research interests
include renewable energy and energy efficiency.
GUILLERMO ESCRIVÁ-ESCRIVÁ was born in
Gandía, Spain in 1975. He received his Ph.D. in
Industrial Engineering in 2009 from the Universi-
tat Politècnica de València (UPV), Spain, where he
has been a Professor in the Electrical Engineering
Department since 2005. Between 2000 and 2005,
he worked in a large construction company as a
facilities engineer. During his time as a university
professor, he has collaborated in various national
and European projects. He has collaborated with
entities from Spain and from countries such as the United States, Hol-
land and Ecuador in different research projects. Among his publications
are several teaching books, more than 20 papers in high impact research
journals, and communications in international congresses. Prof. Escrivá-
Escrivá is one of the collaborators of the laboratory of distributed energy
resources at UPV (Labder) and was one of the developers of the DERD
energy management system that has controlled the power demand of the
Vera Campus at UPV for more than eight years. He presents high technical
training in research and applied studies and has great interest in the transfer
of knowledge from the university to industry and vice versa. His research
interests include energy efficiency, renewable energies, and quality problems
in power systems.
ANTONIO MARCO PANTALEO was born in
Roma, Italy in 1974. He received his Ph.D. in
Energy Engineering in 2013 from Imperial Col-
lege London, UK, where he has been research
fellow in the Department of Chemical Engineer-
ing since 2014. He also joined the Department
of Agro-environmental sciences of the Università
degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Italy, in 2006
as researcher and he is assistant professor since
2012. Between 2000 and 2003, he worked for a
major energy company, developing renewable energy based projects, and
for the Italian transmission system operator, as strategy engineer. During
his time as a university professor, he has collaborated in various national
and European projects in the fields of biomass energy, waste heat recovery,
energy efficiency investments, hybrid renewable energy systems. He was
Delegate of the Rector of University of Bari in 2017-19, in charge of energy
efficiency investments for Campus University, and co-PI of several research
projects related to the integration of energy systems, energy efficiency in
food processing and biomass energy conversion technologies, for a total
budget over 20 MEur in the period 2014-20.
VOLUME 4, 2016 15