Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry and pharmacology

Abstract

With a better understanding of the importance of gelatin and the growing demand for natural biopolymers as pharmacology and food additives, the utilization of gelatin has increased globally over recent years. Gelatin from alternative sources such as animal-based agri–food and mammalian gelatin has been used widely as a response to the increasing gelatin demand. This biopolymer has been used extensively in different industries due to its excellent functional characteristics, abundance, and relatively high economic value. The utilization of animal-based agri–food gelatin, especially in pharmacology and food, has been considered as one of the main applications which benefit both industry and the related science. In addition, its wide use as a coating material, food additive, stabilizer, and clarification agent in the food industry, has resulted in gelatin becoming a commonly accepted biomaterial in pharmacology that is employed as an important material for wound dressings, tissue engineering, and as a drug carrier. This chapter focuses on different approaches to valorization strategies of animal-derived waste into gelatin and highlights the advantages and restrictions of sustainable utilization of it in the food and pharmacology industries. This comprehensive review could inform future research and commercial applications of gelatins.

Full text

Chapter 21
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from
animal-based agrifood waste for the
food industry and pharmacology
Elif Tu˘
gc¸ e Aksun Tu¨ merkan
Department of Food Processing, Vocational High School, University of Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
21.1 Introduction
Besides the increasing global malnutrition rate, one-third
of food materials produced for human consumption is
wasted. Animal-derived waste accounts for a significant
part of the total food waste and is considered to be one of
the most important problems for the environment, econ-
omy, and relevant industries. Thus, the valorization of
animal-derived waste into a versatile material is a recent
promising approach for a bio-based economy trend
recently. Valorization strategies are driven by the charac-
teristics of the raw material, industry demand, and the
socioeconomic conditions of countries. Gelatin, as a
value-added product, is a bioactive compound that has
been utilized in several industries from food to biomedical
uses. With the better understanding of gelatin’s
adaptable properties, its usage has become more popular
with different uses. Because of the differences in the char-
acteristics of waste materials from animal species,
animal-derived gelatin has different properties and there-
fore utilization possibilities. While mammalian gelatin is
utilized in industries commonly, poultry and fish gelatin
have emerged as an alternative. Besides the benefits of
animal-derived gelatin, there are some species-specific
problems that need to be considered. The usage of waste
substances in the production of materials that will be con-
sumed by humans or will interact with the human body
requires safety considerations at the highest level.
Furthermore, the sustainability and commercialization
process needs to be well-organized and well-managed.
Within the increasing demand for gelatin owing to its
versatile properties, the global market for this bioactive
compound is also growing. As a value-added product,
gelatin has great importance for both the regional and
global economy by offering maximum benefits from
waste or by-product materials. Valorization of animal-
based waste offers not only bioactive compounds for
many industries but also creates employment opportu-
nities at the local or global levels. This chapter aims to
discuss the biochemical composition and potential sus-
tainable use of agrifood waste. A particular emphasis
is given to each type of animal-based waste, namely cat-
tle, poultry, and piscine species. The challenge is to
recover bioactive compounds from animal-based waste
to valorize them and simultaneously get them ready for
commercialization. Within this scope, the different utili-
zations of gelatin in different industries and the benefits
and challenges are investigated in depth, which will be
valuable for both academia and the stake-holders in the
dependent industries.
21.1.1 Categories and scale of agrifood waste
The world’s population has been continually increasing
over the last few decades, with an expansion of 30% from
1990 to 2010 (Schuman Foundation, 2013). With the
increasing population, the demand for agrifood products
is estimated to reach up to 3 billion tons by 2050 (FAO,
2009). The term “agrifood” refers to both the agricul-
tural products and the agricultural sector, which include
the activities of bringing products from the farm to the
table. The agrifood industry differs between countries
depending on the geographical properties, consumer
demands, and ethical and legal requirements. Aramyan
et al. (2006) highlighted that characteristics of agrifood
products, transporting and storing procedures, and socio-
economic properties are key factors that shape the global
agrifood industry trends.
425
Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824044-1.00041-6
©2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The agrifood industry transforms agricultural pro-
ducts for the human food chain and animals, and bridges
agriculture and its markets. It has expanded with contin-
ued growth: 17% rate of increase per year from 2004 to
2013, and this positive rise is assumed to continue in the
upcoming few years (Goedde, Horii, & Sanghvi, 2016).
The agrifood industry, as part of the global manufactur-
ing sector, has played an important role in the socioeco-
nomic status of countries (Stadnyk et al., 2020;Danse,
Klerkx, Reintjes, Rabbinge, & Leeuwis, 2020). For exam-
ple, the agrifood sector created 4.25 million jobs in
28,900 companies with 1089 billion Euros (h) of income
in Europe (Food Drink Europe, 2016).
While the global agrifood industry has been shaped
by three main factors: nature, producers, and consumers,
and it has expanded with increasing globalization during
recent years, accounting for 5 trillion dollars per year
globally (Leemans, 2016). While most of the concerns are
related to the sustainability and benefits of the agrifood
industry, the waste from this huge industry and its man-
agement need to be considered. Whereas there is no con-
sensus on the definitions of agrifood waste (AFW) and
agro-industrial waste, the former is defined as “food
losses of quality and quantity during the process of the
supply chain occurring at the production, postharvest, and
processing steps” by Food and Agriculture Organization
FAO, 2015. Additionally, in the specific description, agri-
cultural waste comes from the agricultural step in farming
of certain species, and agro-industrial waste results from
the processing of raw materials (Caballero & Soto, 2019).
Globally, taking into account both agricultural waste and
agro-industrial waste, they are estimated to reach 5 billion
tons annually and this rate could reach up to 70% of total
agrifood biomass by 2050 (Abiad & Meho, 2018;
Naidu, Hlangothi, & John, 2018).
The quantity and properties of agrifood waste vary
from one county to another, depending on the characteris-
tics of the products, processing techniques, population,
and climate properties of the relevant countries. For
instance, total biowaste ranges between 76.5 and 102 mil-
lion tonnes per year across European Union countries
(Jablonsky
´,ˇ
Skulcova
´, Malvis, & ˇ
Sima, 2018).
Meanwhile, the highest agrifood losses were observed
in north Africa, and west and central Asia with a 74.0%
rate of the initial raw material, and the lowest rate was
observed in south and southeast Asia with a 72.8% rate
(Pawlak, 2017). The development level, financial, and
therefore industrialization status of countries are classified
as other reasons for agrifood waste variance among
countries (Chalak, Abou-Daher, Chaaban, & Abiad,
2016). The AFW rate is around two-thirds of the total
food in low-income or developing countries, as a result of
financial and technical restrictions during the postharvest
stages (Chalak, Abou-Daher, & Abiad, 2018).
Conversely, an extensive amount of AFW results from
consumer attitudes, such as wasteful behavior due to an
unnecessary amount of purchased food, in developed or
medium- to high-income countries (Abiad & Meho, 2018;
Leal, Filho, & Kovaleva, 2015). In an in-depth compari-
son, while around half of AFW was created by retail and
consumers in industrial countries, this rate of AFW occurs
most commonly at the postharvest and processing step in
developing countries (Girotto, Alibardi, & Cossu, 2015).
Saeed, Afzaal, Tufail, & Ahmad, (2018) highlighted that
one-third of the agrifood produced (around 1.3 billion
tons) is wasted around the world each year. More specifi-
cally, AFW reaches up to 15 million tons per year in the
UK, representing the highest AFW generation rate in
Europe (Salemdeeb, zu Ermgassen, Kim, Balmford, &
Al-Tabbaa, 2017). In the United States, the annual AFW
is approximately 726 million tons. Meanwhile AFW gen-
eration is rising at a rate of 205 million tons in Europe,
while the rate is 275 million tons in south and southeast
Asia. AFW generation in China accounts for 92.4 million
tons annually (Thi, Kumar, & Lin, 2015; Tsang et al.,
2019). To summarize, there are significant differences in
both the stages of the agrifood chain and socioeconomic
well-being where and when these wastes arise.
The agrifood wastes can be categorized into two
main groups: plant-derived and animal-derived wastes
(Edjabou, Petersen, Scheutz, & Astrup, 2016). The plant-
derived wastes include the peels and nonedible parts of
fruit and vegetables, cereals, root and tubers, and oil
crops; animal-originated wastes include fish and seafood,
meat products, poultry, and dairy products (Ravindran &
Jaiswal, 2016). Animal-derived wastes, especially car-
casses and skins, are generated in large amounts during
slaughtering and processing steps, and the quantities of
waste differ depending on the type of animals being pro-
cessed; animal-derived waste accounts for 3560% (w/w)
of the weight of live animals. Tantamacharik, Carne,
Agyei, Birch, and Bekhit (2018) stated that 33%43%
(w/w) of the initial weight of animals (cattle, broilers, and
pigs) could be produced into meat products. This rate was
relatively higher in fish and seafood, depending on the
species (more than 50%70%) (Phadke et al., 2019).
Animal-based foods are the main protein source for
human consumption and result in a large amount of
animal-derived waste. Meanwhile plant-derived waste
represents a relatively higher proportion (63%) than
animal-derived waste, with the latter offering a wide
range of benefits such as having better nutritional value
and biodegradable rate (Ravindran & Jaiswal., 2016;
Tantamacharik, et al., 2018). These protein-rich wastes
have been utilized with different aims: transporting sub-
strates in health-promoting products, animal feeding, and
energy source. However, there have been some concerns
such as hygiene and legislation that limit the usage of
426 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

animal-derived waste. Valorization of these wastes has
been considered advantageous for many years. With
increasing population growth, the global demand for
nutritionally rich food products (such as cattle, seafood,
and dairy products) has also risen. The demand for these
products is assumed to grow much faster than that for
plant-based food. Prandi et al. (2019) highlighted that the
consumption of animal-based proteins could increase
more than 50% between 2000 and 2030. Consequently,
animal-originated and nutritionally rich wastes have been
considered as a promising and sustainable protein source
(Plazzotta & Manzocco, 2019).
21.2 Socioeconomic and environmental
impact of agrifood waste
There is no doubt that the inevitable detrimental effects of
AFW on the environment and economy are a global issue.
The reducing availability of food intended for human con-
sumption due to agrifood waste is one of the most
important causes of nutritional concerns. Moreover, AFW
has been considered as the main reason for environmen-
tally unsustainable welfare (Abiad & Meho, 2018). The
relatively fast degradation of AFW can create a huge
amount of methane, which can cause irreversible conse-
quences on the environment and therefore industries
(Galanakis., 2015). These environmentally detrimental
effects of AFW also correspond to squandered investment
as it results in the unnecessary usage of water, labor, and
energy (Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016). The wasted invest-
ments of countries differ depending on the amounts of
AFW and level of industrialization. The costs of AFW are
equivalent to USD 218 billion in the United States (Tsang
et al., 2019), 40 billion Euros in Europe (Wrap, 2015), 28
billion Euros in China, and approximately 7.3 billion
Euros in South Africa, annually (Girotto et al., 2015).
Growing environmental and social concerns, political
issues, and the latest economic crises have led to an
increase in the awareness of the requirements of new
industrial approaches for the sustainability of life. The
“bio-economy” and “bio-energy” strategies arise to meet
these global demands. The term “bio-economy” is
described as “transforming life science knowledge into
new, sustainable, eco-efficient and competitive products”
(Diakosavvas and Frezal, 2019). The focus of the first
“global bio-economy” in 2015 was the “usage of biologi-
cal sources, biological processes, and principles for the
sustainable production of goods and service among all
economic sectors” (Global & Summit, 2015). In the latest
update to the bio-economy strategy published in October
2018 by the European Union, the importance of innova-
tive, competitive, and sustainable usage of agrifood
within the product lifecycle is highlighted within three
important areas: (1) guaranteeing the security of food and
nutrition; (2) management of natural sources for sustain-
ability; and (3) reducing all the wastes regardless of the
source while protecting employment and European com-
petitiveness (Battista et al., 2020). Despite technological
advances and increasing industrialization, undernourish-
ment has been rising globally (FAO, 2017). Roser and
Ritchie (2018) pointed out that one in nine people, about
815 million (10.7%) of the 7.6 billion people were suffer-
ing from undernourishment in 2016 around the world, and
one in three people were affected by malnutrition. Almost
all of the undernourished people (around 99%) lived in
developing countries, and the remaining 1% were in
developed countries (Food and Agriculture Organization
FAO, 2015). As a result of hunger and malnutrition, more
than 3 million children were estimated to die and more
than 160 million children had stunted growth per year
around the world (World Hunger, 2016). Recycling and
valorization of agrifood waste could help to meet the
global nutritional requirements of undernourished people.
Furthermore, with a better understanding of the impor-
tance of the AFW interactions with other industries, there
have been considerable amounts of research and projects
focusing on the valorization of these sources from more
effective, economic, and environmental aspects.
Diakosavvas and Frezal (2019) highlighted the bio-
economic strategies that are subjected to different projects
across the world. For example, an EU Horizon project,
Agro-Cycle Protocol, aimed to find the best way of using
the agro-food industry. Animal-derived waste has been
accepted as an important source that could be utilizable
for the manufacturing of new value-added products owing
to its effective functions in several industries (Howaili,
Mashreghi, Shahri, Kompany, & Jalal, 2020). As men-
tioned above, the valorization of AFW through new
value-added products could be a possible solution.
Valorization of AFW from each country may differ
depending on the characterization of agrifood, techno-
logical opportunities, and geographically based
conditions.
21.3 Valorization of agrifood waste
Valorization of agrifood waste has become an important
approach to the circular bio-economy in recent years due
to the high quantity generated and the environmental risks
they pose globally. The term “waste valorization” implies
any treatment that applies to convert waste materials into
new and more useful products, or using them in energy
production. The valorization of agrifood waste offers a
wide range of benefits such as adding value to the low
cost of materials, and reducing environmental pollutants
by treating waste (Gutierrez, Tovar, & Godı
´nez, 2018).
This approach also represents the increasing concerns of
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 427

the 21st century; waste management was limited to dis-
posing or storing until the 1990s, then with the increasing
undernourishment rate and reduction of fuel sources, the
world began to think about how to reduce waste genera-
tion and how to use it more effectively (Castaldi et al.,
2017). These thoughts have led to the optimization
research of waste recovery economically and environmen-
tally over the last few decades (Hafemann, Battisti,
Bresolin, Marangoni, & Machado, 2020). Following the
European Commission method of adapting to a more cir-
cular economy by reusing waste in different industries in
2014, the next goals of stakeholders of this industry are to
limit the landfilling of biodegradable waste after 2025
and increase the recycling rate of solid waste up to 70%
by 2030. Agrifood waste has emerged as a practical and
cheap material for potential resourcing of profit, therefore,
it is described as “new materials for technologies”
(Dahchour & Hajjaji, 2019). This profitable approach is
adopted by different industries such as transportation,
energy production, food, and pharmacology with several
domestic and nondomestic products (Braga, Rodrigues,
Beatriz, & Oliveira, 2015). Valorization of agrifood
waste commonly takes the form of one of the following
ways: adding the waste residue to the ready products, uti-
lizing the waste materials in any stage during product
manufacturing, using the waste as a raw material for
energy production, and usage of waste materials or value-
added by-products in new production processes.
The valorization of agrifood waste differs from one
country to another depending on the amount of waste and
the properties of the agrifood industry in the relevant
countries. As a result of the variation in the physicochem-
ical and biological compositions of waste, the valorization
and pretreatment steps of this waste cannot be carried out
using the same methods for optimal bioconversion.
Valorization of waste is most critical in developing coun-
tries due to their technological and socioeconomic weak-
nesses that can restrict waste management (Joardder &
Masud, 2019). Agrifood waste management and its val-
orization require collaboration and interaction from all
stakeholders (from different businesses and industries)
since it affects the valorization process (Parliament,
2017). With increasing biotechnological development,
“value-added products” have become as popular as “no
value waste,” especially in recent years. While there are
many valorization methods such as energy production or
animal feeding, production of animal protein-based prod-
uct has emerged as a solution to the global protein
demand (Manners et al., 2020).
A basic classification was carried out into the valoriza-
tion of waste as first- and second-generation valorization
(Kusch, Udenigwe, Gottardo, Micolucci, & Cavinato,
2014). It was stated that the difference between the two
valorization strategies is due to the composition of food
wastes arising through the food chain, therefore valoriza-
tion of these wastes occurs at different levels. The first-
generation valorization approach focuses on the usage of
all material streams for animal feeding and energy pro-
duction. The second-generation valorization strategy
includes different forms of partitioned usage of material
streams. Several biochemical and physical methods are
used for the production of different types of value-added
materials such as consumable products and well-
characterized chemicals. With these two valorization
approaches, the food wastes generated during the different
steps of the food chain can be converted into a wide range
of value-added products that can be used in different
trades. Valorization of agrifood waste is not only a solu-
tion to environmental pollution but also an approach to
promote the bio-based economy, by substituting expen-
sive sources with cheaper ones with the same nutritional
value. The improvement and efficiency of this valoriza-
tion approach also depend on the attitude of policymakers
and governmental support. The collection, segregation,
and valorization of agrifood waste requires well-
organized systems integrating many steps due to the het-
erogeneous composition of waste. Centralized waste pro-
cessing is accepted as a holistic model for the
management of these complicated processes. While this
model has been adopted in many countries, generally due
to transporting cost (Ng, Yang, & Yakovleva, 2019),
decentralizing waste processing is preferred when the
waste generation is close to a processing facility which
offers socioeconomic and environmental advantages
(Pleissner, 2016; Venus, Fiore, Demichelis, & Pleissner,
2018). Moreover, other steps from the collected waste to
the storage of value-added products such as chemical
classification, physical and chemical pretreatments,
extraction methods, and purification are key parts of the
optimal sustainability of valorization approaches. For
achievements of valorization and the above-mentioned
stages, the characterization of agrifood waste is an ini-
tial and essential step. Whereas most policymakers deal
with domestic food waste, the waste from commercial
sources also needs to be deeply considered (Parliament,
2017).
The feasibility and sustainability of valorization of
agrifood waste are governed by the attitudes of govern-
ments, agrifood industries, and consumers. The restrictions
and characterization of valorization should be mentioned in
new policies for sustainability. Commercialization of valo-
rized products is another essential requirement for the long-
term bio-economy approach. Ng et al. (2019) pointed out
that the commercialization of waste valorization applications
still needs some improvements, such as economic perception
and government support. On the other hand, consumers
have become more informed and concerned about the “natu-
ral” and/or “eco/green” label for consumables (Trigo,
428 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

Alexandre, Saraiva, & Pintado, 2020). Therefore the con-
sumption of these high value-added products is foreseen to
become increasingly popular with better understanding and
increasing awareness of the importance of agrifood sus-
tainability and bio-economy around the world. Within this
scope, novel valorization approaches have been applied,
which are most commonly based on the protein structure
which offers a wide range of process benefits to the pharma-
ceutical, food, and cosmetics industries (Kosseva, Kosseva,
& Webb, 2020).
A wide range of valorization options has been applied
to convert agrifood waste into usable and economic pro-
ducts. Patsalou et al. (2017) and Venus et al. (2018) valo-
rized agrifood waste into chemicals such as succinic acid
and lactic acid; alternatively, Bo
´rawski et al. (2019) uti-
lized agrifood waste for alternative fuel sources using
biorefinery technologies. Other value-added products
obtained from agrifood waste are biodegradable food
packaging materials such as plastics and composite films
(Franzoso et al., 2016). In addition, conversion of
agrifood waste to biofertilizer is a promising valorization
method (Du et al., 2018). Another promising approach in
the valorization of agrifood waste is to recover several
value-added components. This approach can not only max-
imize the valorization yield but also achieve high value-
added and well-purified final products by avoiding any loss
of functionality (Nayak & Bhushan, 2019). Considering the
increasing global requirement for protein, conversion of
agrifood waste into protein-rich marketable products
offers easy and cheaper solutions for accessing protein
(Cantero-Tubilla, 2017). Nowadays, a wide range of
research is focused on the valorization of agrifood waste
into highly valuable products such as biodegradable and
edible protein that can be used for different purposes
(Sharmila, Muthukumaran, Kumar, Sivakumar, &
Thirumarimurugan, 2020). These important value-added
products can be obtained from both plant- and animal-
derived food wastes, such as wheat and soybean from
plant-based waste and collagen and gelatin from animal-
based waste (Mekonnen, Mussone, & Bressler, 2016).
Value-added products obtained from animal waste such as
protein-rich meals, skin, and fats are accepted as the main
ingredients in the waste valorization approach (Otles &
Kartal, 2018). Gelatin is considered an important value-
added product from animal-derived waste due to its wide
range of applications in several industries from food to
pharmacology. For instance, it can be used as a colloid sta-
bilizer, emulsifier, and hydrogel (Etxabide, Uranga,
Guerrero, & de la Caba, 2017). Whereas gelatin has been
utilized as an edible film and active packaging agents,
usage of this important bioactive compound as a food
ingredient such as foaming agent thickeners has also drawn
attention in recent years (Mullen, A
´lvarez, Hadnadev, &
Papageorgiou, 2015). Many food additives obtained from
agrifood waste such as seed mucilage, fruit, or
vegetables are used in various applications (Alpizar-Reyes
et al., 2018; Villacı
´s-Chiriboga et al., 2020). The nutritive
richness and sustainability opportunities have made the
food available from animal-derived waste more advanta-
geous. Therefore, a growing interest has emerged in opti-
mizing and maximizing the utilization of animal residues
in the gelatin manufacturing industry from both economic
and ecological perspectives in the last few decades. Gelatin
is one of the robust models for value-added products which
offers several benefits to different industries. This bioactive
compound contributes to regional and global economies by
being very profitable and creating employment.
21.4 Gelatin: a value-added product from
animal-derived waste
Gelatin is an animal-based protein obtained by hydrolysis
of collagen and is accepted as one of the most versatile
biopolymers that are extensively utilized in the food,
pharmaceutical, and biomedical industries. While the
global gelatin demand was 412.7 kilotons in 2015, this
demand increased drastically and reached up to 620.6
kilotons in 2019 and the volume-based expansion is
expected to be 5.9% from 2020 to 2027 (Grand View
Research, 2016). Tkaczewska, Morawska, Kulawik, and
Zaja˛c (2018) reported that the global gelatin market was
worth 4.52 billion USD in 2018. As indicated in
Fig. 21.1. The valorization of animal-derived waste into
the gelatin is a promising approach for the sustainability
of several industrial practices.
Given the growing market for gelatin, the demand for
raw materials has also increased globally. Animal-derived
agrifood wastes such as bones, skins, and connective tis-
sues of cattle, poultry, and marine animals are the main
sources (Ravindran and Jaiswal, 2016). The skins of pigs
and cow are the main sources of gelatin as they are easily
available. The commonly used gelatin sources reported are
pigs’ skin and cartilage (46%), and bovine hides (29.4%),
bones (23.1%), and other sources (1.5%) (Business, 2017).
This trend has changed over recent decades as a result of
increasing raw material demand, religious reasons, and
health risks related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) from mammalian gelatin. While pigskin met about
40% of the global demand for raw material in 2015, the
relevant industries and academia tend to use other sources
such as fish and poultry for gelatin production (Bello, Kim,
Kim, Park, & Lee, 2017).
21.4.1 Gelatin derived from mammalian species
Traditionally, mammalian gelatins obtained from bones,
skins, and bovine hides accounted for the vast majority of
commercial gelatin due to their biochemical and physical
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 429

benefits, such as bloom strength, viscosity, and gelling
point (Aksun Tu
¨merkan, Cansu, Boran, Regenstein, &
O
¨zo˘
gul, 2019). The amino acid composition, reversible
gel-forming properties, and organoleptic properties have
made mammalian gelatin more preferable than piscine
and porcine-sourced gelatin. Furthermore, the availability
and prices of raw materials are making mammalian gela-
tin more advantageous than other sources. In terms of
waste materials, skins are accepted as a safer material
than bone for gelatin production, because bone has a high
contamination risk with potentially infected tissue.
Therefore gelatin obtained from skins is considered a
safer product than gelatin derived from bone (Jannat
et al., 2020). With the rising demand for mammalian gela-
tin, both regionally and globally consumed mammalian
animal waste and by-products are used as raw materials
for gelatin production; Xu et al. (2017) stated that yak
skin gelatin has commercialization potential for gelatin
production due to its higher denaturation temperature and
level of amino acids and its lower foamability and emulsi-
bility compared to other gelatins. Al-Hassan (2020)
researched the usage of skins from three different ages of
camels (Camelus dromedarius) for gelatin production and
indicated that, depending on the age of the animal, gelatin
yield, melting point, and gelling point were varied and
that camel skin offers an alternative for gelatin production
with desirable bloom strength. Mammalian gelatin was
obtained also from rabbit skin. Yu et al. (2016)
highlighted that the skin of rabbit is the main waste of
rabbit processing and the usage of this waste in gelatin
production offered an alternative gelatin which had a sim-
ilar amino acid composition, molecular structure, and out-
standing gel properties as other mammalian gelatins, with
fewer religiously restrictions on its consumption.
Alternatively, gelatin derived from ovine (sheep and goat)
and equine waste was considered as sources for mamma-
lian gelatin (Abdullah, Noordin, Ismail, & Mustapha,
2018). Mad-Ali, Benjakul, Prodpran, and Maqsood (2016)
highlighted that the skin of the goat is a promising alter-
native gelatin source due to the gelatin obtained from
goatskin containing α-chains protein structure and higher
gel strength than bovine gelatin sold commercially.
Besides the outstanding properties of mammalian gelatin,
some sociocultural, religious, and health-related concerns
have limited the its usage during recent decades. The
main health risk of mammalian gelatin is BSE, commonly
referred to as “mad cow disease” and “foot-and-mouth
disease” (FMD). “Transmissible spongiform encephalopa-
thy” (TSE) and “human variant CreutzfeldtJakob dis-
ease” are also considered important risks to human health
(Hong, Low, Moo, & Teh, 2020; Maki and Annaka,
2020). Besides health issues, religious and social restric-
tions have also led researchers to find alternative sources
for gelatin production. The consumption of some land
FIGURE 21.1 Valorization of animal-derived waste into the gelatin and its usage in different industries.
430 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

animals such as porcine and cows and their derivates are
prohibited in Hinduism, Islam, and/or Judaism. The
restrictions related to religions are of vital importance
since the total population of Hindus, Muslims, and Jews
are estimated to increase by almost 53% and reach nearly
3.7 billion in the next 20 years around the world (PRC,
2019). Therefore, the gelatins obtained from poultry and
aquatic sources have become more popular and received
extensive attention over the recent years.
21.4.2 An alternative to mammalian gelatin:
poultry gelatin
The poultry industry is an important animal-based food
trade. The production of poultry meat increased from 58.5
to 121 million metric tons between 2000 and 2017
(Stiborova et al., 2020). Therefore a significant number of
by-products and wastes have been generated through
poultry processing. The waste from the poultry industry
after processing can account for as much as 20% of the
total avian species weight (Arshad et al., 2018) and the
protein content of this waste is between 20% and 25%.
Therefore the usage of poultry waste in cattle feeding and
energy production or conversion of the poultry waste into
gelatin are considered as other valorization approaches
(Du., 2016). There has been an intensive trend in gelatin
derived from poultry by-products as a replacement for
mammalian gelatins over the last few decades. This
increasing demand caused by poultry waste can be used
in gelatin production without any religious constraint and
is safe from BSE or other land animal-related health
issues. Depending on the avian species, different wastes
and by-products are used in gelatin production, such as
mechanically deboned residue, skin, tendon, head, and
feet (Sharif, 2019). The quality of poultry gelatin varies
depending on the age of the avian species and the relative
proportion of skin, head, feet, and bones that are utilized
as the source for gelatin production. The gelatin derived
from the poultry industry changes based on the type of
waste used. For instance, mechanically separated poultry
meat represents a 70% recovery of meat and contains a
high rate of connective tissue and total protein. The head
of poultry, especially the head from chickens and ducks is
another important waste of the poultry industry, which
reached up to approximately 71 billion heads in 2017
(FAOSTAT, 2019). Furthermore, several studies have
indicated that different kinds of waste can be converted to
gelatin, such as the feet of chickens and ducks
(Bichukale, 2018), the skin of different avian species, and
processing by-products (Ga
´l et al., 2020) due to the high
organic collagen material content of these wastes.
Chicken skin gelatin has the potential to replace mam-
malian gelatin due to its high levels of hydroxyproline
and proline, which are essential for acceptable gelatin and
directly affect the physical properties of the gel. The
achievements of the wastes and by-products such as skin
and bone from the broiler processing industry have
revealed that these wastes could be converted into gelatin
that has a great market globally (Cansu & Boran, 2015).
While chicken skin is considered as the most commonly
used poultry material for gelatin production, different
wastes of other species have been utilized for the same
valorization approach. Abedinia, Ariffin, Huda, and
Nafchi (2017) highlighted that Pekin duck feet are an
alternative gelatin source with a high gelatin yield, good
essential amino acid composition, and physicochemical
properties. Also, due to the skin of poultry containing
high amounts of fat and low collagen concentration, the
legs and feet are considered as better collagen sources for
gelatin production. Alternatively, Du (2016) compared the
heads of chicken and turkey as poultry sources for gelatin
production and indicated that gelatin derived from turkey
head had relatively better functional and rheological char-
acteristics than the gelatin derived from chicken head.
Poultry gelatin is a promising alternative to mammalian
gelatin due to its following benefits, offering the physico-
chemical and rheological characteristics, welcomed in all
religions. Furthermore, the poultry industry is the fastest-
growing sector in terms of poultry meat consumption
globally, which supports the sustainability and availability
of waste.
Despite these advantages, there remain some chal-
lenges for poultry gelatin, such as the low extraction yield
that can limit the feasibility of poultry gelatin in the com-
petitive mammalian gelatin industry and the variable price
of poultry species; the duck price is relatively higher than
chicken and this would affect the competitive pricing for
poultry gelatin compared to pig/cattle gelatin (Bichukale,
2018). Since the poultry gelatin market is still compara-
tively smaller than those of mammalian and piscine gela-
tin, the certification and tracking for waste materials
derived from poultry still need to be proven to meet the
fundamental requirements for material used in food and
market extension. Another important challenge is a health
issue. Poultry gelatin has been limited by the safety issue
due to avian influenza, the H5N1 risk, known as highly
pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) infection,
which was discovered in the 1990s (Jayathilakan, Sultana,
Radhakrishna, & Bawa, 2012;Mad-Ali, Benjakul,
Prodpran, & Maqsood, 2017). For that reason, public con-
cerns about these viral health risks from poultry products
and the entire product have to be reassured by pathogen-
free products. The proliferation of poultry waste utiliza-
tion into gelatin production and improvement of processes
and marketing need to be considered in future investiga-
tions. With these improvements, poultry gelatin may offer
admirable properties in the competitive gelatin industry
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 431

with the contribution of scientific committees, the rele-
vant industry, and decision-makers.
21.4.3 A promising approach: fish gelatin
Seafood is an important nutritional component of the
human diet and offers health benefits such as reducing
cardiovascular disease risk, preventing cancer and tumors,
while providing protein, vitamin D, polyunsaturated fatty
acids, selenium, and iodine. According to the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO,
2016), seafood provided almost 3.1 billion people with
more than 20% of their intake of animal-based protein.
The rising global population and increasing demand for
protein-enriched diets have led to a considerable increase
in seafood consumption around the world. Annual con-
sumption of seafood has more than doubled since the
1960s globally (FAO, 2016). While seafood consumption
varies in each country depending on the geographic situa-
tion, the age of the population, and the socioeconomic
conditions, it has increased globally. Annual seafood con-
sumption has increased from 14.4 to 37.9 kg between the
1990s and 2010s in China, and the rate was reported as
22.2 and 21.4 kg in Europe and the United States, respec-
tively (FAO, 2016). The consumption of this kind of
protein-rich food represents a vital nutritional component
in some countries where the total protein intake amounts
are low. As in other animal-based foods, a considerable
amount of organic waste such as skin, shells, bones, and
guts are generated during the harvesting, processing, and
transporting of seafood. The amount of waste from each
type of seafood differs widely based on the species and
processing techniques. For instance, 75% of the total
catch weight is converted as waste from the fish filleting
process, and more than 50% of fish weight does not
directly enter the human food chain during the fish can-
ning process (Tumerkan, 2017). The amounts of waste
also vary in different species. Tuna may generate almost
70% of total biomass as waste, this rate was determined
as 60% during cod processing. Some differences are also
observed in shellfish, the generated waste is 88% during
scallops catching and harvesting, and almost 3% of cuttle-
fish is considered as waste. Furthermore, some research-
ers have focused on the usage of wastewater and effluents
of commercial fish and seafood-processing plants due to
their high level of nutrient compounds (Cristo
´va
˜o et al.
2015). Therefore the valorization of these nutritionally
rich wastes with different approaches is a robust model to
meet the bio-economy scope. These nutritionally rich
wastes are commonly used as fertilizer, energy sources,
and animal feed due to their richness in protein and min-
eral compounds. Alternatively, turning these wastes into
higher profitability products such as bio-polymer, food
additives, and bioactive peptides are the possible ways to
use them for the production of value-added products.
Furthermore, converting these wastes into bioactive mate-
rials that can be used in different industries from food to
pharmacology can also yield financial benefits (Plazzotta,
and Manzocco, 2019). Fish gelatin is an ideal valorization
method of seafood waste since fish skin and scale contain
a high level of collagen. This valorization application is
also a promising approach to meet the increasing gelatin
demand globally. Fish gelatin is accepted as an alternative
gelatin source with biotechnological and economic advan-
tages (Du, 2016). Additionally, fish gelatin does not have
any BSE or avian influenza virus problems, or religious
restrictions. The enhanced digestibility of fish gelatin
makes it more competitive among the other animal-based
gelatin (Plazzotta, and Manzocco, 2019). Besides the
above-mentioned benefits, there are some challenges and
limitations to fish gelatin. Since the waste from fish is
highly perishable, some enzymatic or microbiological
changes occur immediately during transportation and stor-
age (Fereidoon, Vamadevan, Han, & Ruchira, 2019). The
unpleasant fishy odor and allergy risks are other problems
of fish gelatin. Furthermore, some inferior properties such
as lower molecular weight and melting point limit the
industrialization of fish gelatin. More research is required
to use fish gelatin sustainably and effectively. The extrac-
tion of gelatin from fish species has been subjected to a
wide range of research over the last few decades. Besides
the different warm-water species such as catfish, tuna,
and tilapia, several coldwater species such as salmon,
Alaska pollock, and cod are also utilized for fish gelatin
production (Du, 2016). The functional properties of the
waste, such as melting point and thermal stability depend
on the species. Similarly, the gelatin yield also differs
based on the collagen content of used species, extraction
methods, and the body part that is used as a source of gel-
atin production. For instance, the yield for tuna was deter-
mined as 8.37%, and for tilapia it was 13.27% (Asih,
Kemala, & Nurilmala, 2019). Since the protein character-
istics and amino acid composition are the main factors for
gelatin yield, some significant differences have been
observed in fish gelatin obtained from coldwater and
warmwater species (Aksun Tu
¨merkan et al., 2019).
For example, myofibrillar proteins obtained from warm
water species are relatively more thermally stable than
coldwater species. This could be explained by the com-
paratively lower hydroxyproline contents of coldwater
fish. These characteristics impact how fish gelatin could
replace mammalian gelatin in different applications. Due
to the lower proline and hydroxyproline content, the tran-
sition temperature of fish gelatin from gel to sol occurs
below the ambient temperature, whereas the mammalian
gelatin occurs at the room temperature and this property
allows the usage of fish gelatin in several fabrication
approaches such as a nanofibrous web without any
432 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

thermal process (Kwak et al., 2017). Tkaczewska et al.
(2018) highlighted that since carp gelatin has similar
properties to mammalian gelatins in terms of fat-binding
capacities and water-holding properties, fish gelatin can
be used as an alternative to mammalian gelatin. As men-
tioned above, some species-specific and processing-
related problems have limited the sustainability of gelatin
derived from different animal wastes; these important
value-added products are still uniquely biodegradable
polymer materials and can be used in different approaches
in food and pharmacology. Meanwhile the alternative uti-
lization of gelatin in novel areas such as tissue engineer-
ing or gene therapy, and the food and beverage industry
remains the highest user, accounting for nearly 30% of
total gelatin volume globally (Grand View Research,
2016b;Lin, Regenstein, Lv, Lu, & Jiang, 2017).
21.5 Usage of animal-originated gelatin
in the food industry
According to the bio-based economy scope, valorization
of agrifood waste not only benefits waste treatment but
also provides raw materials for commonly used nutrient
source production. The utilization of animal waste-
derived gelatin in the food industry has been accepted as
one of the profitable valorization approaches due to the
increasing demand for gelatin in the food industry.
Following the permission for gelatin usage by the Joint
Expert Commission on Food Additives in the 1970s and
declaration of “gelatin is a safe food ingredient, GRAS,”
by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the
1990s, utilization of gelatin in the food industry has
shown importance in a number of fields. Utilization of
gelatin in the food industry occurs in two different ways:
using it directly as a gelling, foaming, stabilizing, or
emulsifying agent in food production or using it in the
formulations of food coatings or packaging materials for
the protection and extension of the shelf-life of food (Liu,
Nikoo, Boran, Zhou, & Regenstein, 2015). Gelatin is cate-
gorized into two types, type A gelatin and type B gelatin,
depending on the extraction procedure; acid treatment
extracted gelatin with an isoelectric point from 7 to 9
(type A) and alkali treatment extracted gelatin with a rela-
tively lower isoelectric point from 4 to 5 (type B)
(Shankar, Jaiswal, & Rhim, 2016). The characteristics of
gelatin vary depending on the species/waste from which it
is obtained and the extraction methods. The gel strength,
viscosity, molecular weight, and melting point are consid-
ered important quality parameters that affect the ways of
utilizing gelatin in the food industry. Organoleptic proper-
ties and product yields are also key factors in the usage of
gelatin in different food matrices or packaging materials
(Xu et al., 2017). Animal waste-derived gelatin has met
the global gelatin demand in the food industry owing to
its exceptional functional characteristics.
21.5.1 Gelatin as a paramount food additive
Food additives have been used for different purposes in
the food industry for over 2000 years. While some food
additives can be used for improving sensory quality and
acceptability of food products in food marketing, some
can be used in most food processing procedures. Gelatin
is accepted as a paramount food additive due to its excel-
lent properties and common utilization in the dairy, bever-
age, bakery, and meat processing industries. Gelatin
offers a wide range of benefits to food products depend-
ing on the targeted approaches and functional properties
that are characterized by the origin and extraction pro-
cesses. While the gelatin is used to improve the textural
properties of food products most commonly, this para-
mount food additive has also been used for clarifying
juice or contibute to adhesion of different ingredients in
food products from pickle products to candies (Mariod
and Adam, 2013). The best known usage of gelatin in the
food industry is the utilization of this excellent additive as
a gelling agent in dessert items. According to GMIA
(GMIA Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America,
2012), the production of gelatin-based desserts reached up
to approximately 100 million pounds annually in the US
market. Gelatin is mixed with other compounds such as
corn syrup, flour, or sugar during the production of jelly
desserts, and the shape and hardness of desserts are driven
by the physiochemical properties of gelatin, such as the
pH and bloom strength (Sultana and Ahamad, 2018). In
the dairy industry, the addition of gelatin is used for the
stabilization and improvement of the texture of yogurt
and gives a good mouthfeel and smooth texture to cheese
products. Also, with the usage of gelatin, the formation of
ice crystals is reduced in ice cream and the recrystalliza-
tion of lactose can be inhibited through storage (Jain,
Dhakal, & Anal, 2017). Gelatin is accepted as a main
ingredient for ice cream, other frozen desserts, and pow-
dered dairy products due to its stabilizer effect. The usage
of gelatin in the bakery industry can occur both directly
and indirectly; it can be utilized directly as a stabilizing,
foaming, and setting agent through the preparation of
cakes, bread, and pies, and it can be used also as a whip-
ping agent for cream that is used in bakery products
(Mariod and Adam, 2013; Sultana and Ahamad, 2018).
The usage of gelatin in meat products is also very com-
mon industrially. Gelatin improves the water-binding,
emulsifying, foaming, and gelation properties of some
meat products (Plazzotta, and Manzocco, 2019). This
excellent food additive especially improves the textural
properties of emulsified meat products such as sausage,
meatball, and pate. Using gelatin, the textural and
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 433

sensorial properties of seafood such as surimi and other
meat-based products are also improved. Gelatin also can
be used as a food additive in aspic products which are
produced with any kind of meat, vegetable, and gelatin.
Gelatin can also improve the quality of beverages by act-
ing as clarifying agents and aroma-binding agents (Qi
et al., 2018). Due to being low calorie and having a high
protein content, gelatin offers not only an improvement of
the functional properties of food and beverage products
but also enrichment of the nutritional value of food pro-
ducts. Moreover, gelatin can also enhance aroma and fla-
vor in different food products (Jain, Dhakal, & Anal,
2017).
21.5.2 Gelatin as a coating and packaging
material
With a better understanding of the importance of proces-
sing and packaging techniques on food products, novel
approaches such as biomaterial-based packaging, edible
films, and encapsulation approaches have gained interest in
recent years. Mazorra-Manzano, Ramı
´rez-Sua
´rez, Moreno-
Herna
´ndez, and Pacheco-Aguilar (2018) highlighted that
the usage of gelatin in microencapsulation offers controlled
releasing of both flavor and aroma compounds and useful
bacteria, essential oils, and polyunsaturated fatty acids in
different matrices. While protecting food products with
maximum quality and delivering the final food products to
the consumer are the commonly known main targets of
food packaging, the current trends of the packaging indus-
try have tended toward developing edible and biodegrad-
able packaging materials. The usage of natural and
biodegradable materials instead of synthetic or irreversible
substances is a promising approach because of the endan-
gered natural sources and environmental and health issues
of synthetic packaging materials. Several novel packaging
approaches, such as smart packaging, biodegradable pack-
aging, and edible packaging, have been subjected to both
scientific and industrial approaches (Loo and Sarbon,
2020). Gelatin, as an important protein-based biodegrad-
able packaging and coating material, widely utilized in the
food industry. Like other protein-based packaging materi-
als, it can be used directly or in the incorporation of pheno-
lic compounds and chitosan for food products (Shankar
et al., 2016). For instance, the utilization of gelatin in chit-
osangelatin films, cassava starchgelatin films, and lig-
ningelatin films have improved the mechanical and
barrier properties of composite films (Loo and Sarbon,
2020). Containing a thin layer, the edible coating acts as a
barrier between food products and external threats such as
gas and moisture, which can damage food quality. Edible
films containing gelatin have been applied for different
food matrices from fruit to meat products to extending
shelf-life and improving quality. Etxabide et al. (2017)
stated that while the gelatin-containing films have poor
barrier properties, the other mechanical characteristics such
as thermal stability and melting point and high sensitivity
to moisture, make them preferable in food applications.
Gelatin, regardless of which animal source is used, has
become more commonly used as active or smart packaging
materials or edible films for different kinds of food pro-
ducts at the experimental and industrial scale recently.
Etxabide et al. (2017) highlighted that active gelatin films
obtained from bovine, fish, and porcine gelatin improved
the quality of several food products from fish steaks to
minced pork. Ramos et al. (2016) reviewed food products
coated with gelatin-based films and stated that a gelatin-
based coating has been successfully applied in not only the
fish and meat industries but also in fruits such as blueberry,
pineapple, and strawberry, and some vegetables from
cherry tomatoes to carrots while retarding the degradation
processes. Moreover, Costa, Maciel, Teixeira, Vicente, and
Cerqueira (2018) made gelatin-based edible coatings and
films to improve the quality of various cheese products
from cream cheese to cottage cheese. With technological
improvement and a better understanding of novel packag-
ing approaches such as active packaging and smart packag-
ing, gelatin will be used in more approaches. The proven
achievements of gelatine in particular foods such as fish or
cheese will increase its usage in the beverage industry and
for other food items after further research.
21.6 Usage of animal-originated gelatin
in pharmacology
Besides the common usage of gelatin in the food industry,
it has also been utilized as a natural biopolymer in the phar-
maceutical industry with different aims. This usage
accounted for almost 21% of the total gelatin use in the
world (Abdullah, Noordin, Ismail, & Mustapha, 2018).
Most commonly, gelatin is used as an ingredient for both
soft and hard gel capsules, substation compound of blood
plasma, and encapsulation of the health supplements such
as vitamins or essential oils. Alternatively, it acts as a
wound dressing material and is used in sterile sponge pro-
duction for use in medical and dental surgery (Qureshi
et al., 2020). Gelatin offers a robust material in the pharma-
ceutical industry and is considered as “GRAS” with excep-
tional properties. The encapsulation material plays a
significant role in releasing any target matrices when it is
taken orally and gelatin is a promising material that can
enhance viscosity and prolong the release of dry materials
and nanoparticles such as drug- and gene-delivery materials,
and healthcare supplements such as vitamins and minerals
(Abdullah, Noordin, Ismail, & Mustapha, 2018;Saber,
2019). While the characteristics of gelatin differ based on
434 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

the species from which it is obtained and the extraction
method, it is accepted as a no-carcinogenic, easily available,
and cheap biocompatible material for the pharmaceutical
industry and is utilized in several approaches.
21.6.1 Gelatin—an inactive ingredient in
pharmaceutical products
The growing demand for functional biodegradable materi-
als has pressured manufacturers to produce pharmaceuti-
cal products with added functional properties by adding
raw ingredients that benefit both consumers and produ-
cers. The most common usage of gelatin as an inactive
ingredient is in both hard and soft capsules due to its
unique film-forming capacity. Depending on the physio-
chemical properties such as gelling temperature, melting
temperature, and gel strength, gelatin has been used in
soft and/or hard capsules. Due to some essential require-
ments such as having enough softness and elasticity for
the filling process and suitability for high-speed machin-
ery during the capsule production process, the determina-
tion of the physical characteristics of gelatin used in
capsule production is a key factor. While the hard cap-
sule, also known as a two-piece capsule utilized for pow-
ders, can be produced using gelatin with relatively higher
gel strength, the soft gelatin capsules, known as one-piece
capsules used for liquids, generally can be produced from
gelatin with poor gel strength and relatively lower perme-
ability in terms of water vapor, which impacts on the
shelf-life of capsulated pharmaceuticals (Guadipati,
2013). Abdullah, Noordin, Ismail, & Mustapha, (2018)
highlighted that a wide range of research has been con-
ducted to improve the shelf-life of these two types of cap-
sules at extreme conditions, such as high humidity and
temperature.
The market for gelatin in capsule manufacturing has
been continuously growing over the last few decades
since it can mask the undesirable and bad taste of pharma-
ceuticals by an alternative delivery method, especially for
children. The usage of gelatin in the capsule industry
accounted for 10% of the total edible gelatin in developed
countries (Batu, Regenstein, & Dogan, 2015). In addition,
the gelatin obtained from different animal sources, such
as cattle, poultry, and piscine species, offers several alter-
natives for those who have religious and social concerns.
Gelatin has also been used as an adhesiveness and viscos-
ity enhancer in tablets and granules owing to its natural
binding property and is a natural alternative for synthetic
ointments (Abdullah, Noordin, Ismail, & Mustapha,
2018). Alternatively, indicated that gelatin has acted as a
stabilizer in various viral vaccines, such as diphtheria and
rabies, and injectable microspheres. Gelatin is also used
in some medical devices such as intravenous hemostatic
agents and bone replacement products. Furthermore, the
achievements of gelatin-based hydrogel for encapsulation
of nano-size compounds are accepted as an essential base
substance in most tissue-engineering approaches (Klotz,
Gawlitta, Rosenberg, Malda, & Melchels, 2016).
Gelatin used as additives in pharmacological products
emerged from a growing tendency to replace synthetic
materials with natural ones. In this respect, the research
into gelatine has been of great interest since its bioactive
characterization is excellent. Some patents and projects
have been achieved through the positive results of gelatine
utilization in pharmaceutical products. Hussain et al.
(2020) stated that the usage of gelatine-based nanoconju-
gates has great potential as an internal stimuli-responsive
platform for delivering cancer drugs. Yasmin, Shah, Khan,
& Ali, (2017) also highlighted that the potential utilization
of gelatine-containing materials in medical applications via
pharmaceutical products from vaccines to therapeutics in
medicine approaches. Similarly, Fan, Cheng, Yin, Wang,
and Han (2020) stated that gelatine-containing hydrogels
exhibit admirable antibacterial activity and biocompatibil-
ity and these properties make the gelatine-based biomate-
rial ideal for several drug-releasing uses. Due to this novel
approach, future research will need the standardization of
protocols and extensive clinical application for the better
utilization of gelatine in this field.
21.6.2 Gelatin in tissue engineering
Collagen-originated connective tissue is the principal
component of bones, dentine of teeth, and tendons, which
offer the interplay between muscles and bones. Gelatin is
an excellent example of a collagen-based material that is
required in the skin, hair, and nail connective tissue struc-
ture due to its unique amino acid composition (Bello
et al., 2017). Gelatin-based hydrogel utilization is a prom-
ising application in the regeneration of bone as recon-
struction based on skulls and prosthetic heart valves used
in intravascular surgery. The adaptation properties of the
biomaterial derived from fish skin, owing to the charac-
teristic structure consisting of dermis and epidermis layers
are similar features to human skin, and therefore fish-
derived material can be used in scaffold fabrication with
good biodegradability and biocompatibility in human tis-
sues (Lima Junior, 2019;Magnusson et al., 2015;
Yamada, Yamamoto, Ikeda, Yanagiguchi, & Hayashi,
2014). The utilization of fish gelatin in tissue engineering
or OCC systems has been driven by the cell adhesion
properties and physicochemical characteristics related to
product yield. The gelatin yield differs from one species
to another, at between 5.00%15.00%, which may be
related to the protein profile and amino acid composition
of the used species (Aksun Tu
¨merkan et al., 2019).
Furthermore, the achievements of gelatin-based hydrogel
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 435

for encapsulation of nano-size compounds mean it is
accepted as an essential base substance in most tissue-
engineering approaches (Klotz et al., 2016). Fish gelatin-
based hydrogel utilization is a promising approach in the
regeneration of bone for reconstruction of skull and pros-
thetic heart valves. As a natural biopolymer, fish-derived
gelatin has the potential to be popular in the regulation of
cell division and migration of cells for bone tissue engi-
neering (Ranganathan et al., 2019). Gelatin has also been
used in porous scaffolds, which are essential for many
biomedical compound-based treatments such as tissue
engineering. As a natural biopolymer, gelatin obtained
from different animals from mammals to fish and even
the marine gastropod Ficus has been preferably used in
the regulation of cell division, adhesion, and migration of
cells for bone tissue engineering (Ranganathan et al.,
2019). A wide range of research has been conducted in
gelatin-based porous scaffolds; Etxabide et al. (2017)
indicated that the achievements of piscine gelatin-based
and lactose cross-linked porous scaffolds in the delivery
of tetrahydrocurcumin were due to offering relatively
higher water-resistance. Gelatin-based glutaraldehyde
cross-linked biodegradable material was tested at the
experimental scale by Sghayyar et al. (2020) who
reported that the produced material has a positive effect
on in vitro wound healing. Moreover, Kwak et al. (2017)
produced a gelatin-based nanofiber by electrospinning
method and improved the water stability and mechanical
characteristics of nanofibrous scaffolds with glutaralde-
hyde, with the results revealing that the tested gelatin-
based nanofiber scaffold had an admirable proliferation
rate and good cell adhesion capacity. Yoon et al. (2016)
demonstrated that the achievements of GelMA hydrogel,
which is prepared using fish gelatin, in the extracellular
matrix basement by 3D culture owing to its admirable
benefits such as formation capability and biocompatibil-
ity. Gelatin is also a promising candidate for bioink, with
excellent properties such as polymerization and adhesion
(Ho
¨lzl et al., 2016)
21.6.3 Other usages of gelatin in pharmacology
Another field of interest besides as an capsulation mate-
rial, has seen gelatin also utilized as plasma substitutes
and in sponge production. Arsyanti, Erwanto, Rohman,
and Pranoto (2018) reported that gelatin has the potential
to become an alternative synthetic polymer used
for plasma substitute production. Gelatin has been utilized
also as a wound dressing material owing to its
superior biocompatibility and wound-healing capacity.
Tu
¨re, (2019) developed a wound-dressing material with
gelatin and alginate with hydroxyapatite and tested the
swelling performance. His findings revealed that the
mechanical characteristics changed based on the alginate
and hydroxyapatite content. In addition to gelatin’s
wound-dressing performance, it can also use in wound
healing by oral administration (Ranasinghe et al., 2020).
Drug delivery is another important field in which gelatin
has been used successfully. Kang et al. (2019) claim that
gelatin-based nanogels could be used for nano-scale drug
delivery with safety over cytotoxicity and aggregation.
Gelatin has also been used widely in sponge production
as these are commonly used in surgical and dental appli-
cations due to their resorbing capability in the body as
they are designed to melt at normal body temperature
(Qureshi et al., 2020). This important quality allows the
release of any materials in the rectum and vagina.
Alternatively, the usage of gelatin has been lent to a wide
range of applications with benefits to human health;
improving the quality of pharmaceuticals and the adminis-
tration of some compounds. Sadiq, Singh, and Anal
(2017) indicated that gelatin intake significantly reduced
the pain of osteoarthritis patients. Moreover, the positive
effect of gelatin on the absorption of calcium offers the
potential to be used as an antioxidant and antihypertensive
agent (Lee, Patel, Sung, & Kalia, 2020).
21.7 Challenges to animal-derived gelatin
in the food and pharmacology industries
Although animal waste-derived gelatin has been utilized
in a wide range of approaches in both foods and industries
with several benefits; it has also some drawbacks and
concerns about its safety and sustainability. It is critical
that as an ideal biomaterial used in the food and pharma-
cology field, gelatin should not cause any toxic reactions
or allergic symptoms in the body; and gelatin derived
from animals should be safe in terms of these risks. Fish-
originated gelatin has more allergic risks relative to other
animal-sourced gelatins. Fish gelatin has been considered
an allergen risk since the beginning of the 2000s. Fish
contains special proteins with allergic potential, such as
parvalbumins, enolases, and aldolases, which have lower
molecular weight but are highly stable (Milovanovic and
Hayes, 2018). As stated in the (EU) No 1169/2011 regula-
tion of food allergen, fish gelatin should be declared on
the package if it is present in food products when it is uti-
lized as a carrier for carotenoids or vitamins. When it is
used as a fining agent in some beverages such as beer and
wine the declaration is not required. Besides the above-
mentioned health issues regarding cattle and poultry gela-
tin, BSE, TSE, and FMD for mammalian gelatin, the risks
related to HPAIV infection for poultry gelatin, and antibi-
otic residues in animal-derived products are considered
other risks that need to be considered (Sadeghi et al.,
2018). The allergic and health-related issues need to be
considered and gelatin utilized in pharmaceutical products
436 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

such as capsules, vaccines, and tissue engineering has to
be proven to be safe. Aroma and taste are the main issues
for animal-derived gelatin related to sensory attributes in
the food industry. The fishy odor and aroma are consid-
ered as important factors that limited the extensive usage
of fish gelatin. Abedinia et al. (2020) pointed out that sen-
sory characteristics limit the extensive utilization of gela-
tin derived not only from fish but also from poultry.
Sultana and Ahamad (2018) stated that due to the strong
interaction between aroma compounds and gelatin, gelatin
can alter the aroma and odor characteristics of food pro-
ducts, which are directly related to consumer perception.
Color and viscosity have been accepted as other proper-
ties that affect the sensory attributes and thereby the
industrialization of gelatin obtained from animal-sourced
waste. Especially, the storage period and conditions of
waste material before gelatin extraction induce the forma-
tion of volatile compounds such as aldehydes and alco-
hols, and lipid oxidation which make undesirable odors
and aromas stronger (Ranasinghe et al., 2020). Therefore
the storage, transporting, and pretreatments of waste
material used in gelatin production need to be considered
carefully and the optimal conditions should meet the
requirements. Some solutions, such as activated carbon
treatment, freeze-drying, or acid treatment, before proces-
sing of waste material, or spray drying of animal-derived
gelatin, accelerate the removal of unpleasant aromas and
odors. Besides the health issues and sensory attributes,
some religious and social restrictions have also limited
the usage of animal-derived gelatin in food and pharma-
cology. The utilization of animal-sourced gelatin has been
driven by religious concerns depending on where it is
consumed. For instance, the consumption of pork is pro-
hibited by Jews and Muslims, and bovine materials and
derived products are forbidden by Hindus (Jannat et al.,
2020). Considering that each religious group has its
restrictions about the consumption of some special animal
products and the global population of relevant groups
around the world, the industrialization and marketing of
animal waste-derived gelatin needs to be well organized.
21.8 Conclusion, opportunities, and
future challenges
With increasing quantities of animal-based agrifood
waste globally and the growing global population, valori-
zation of these nutritionally rich wastes into gelatin as an
important biodegradable material is a promising approach.
This valorization also serves as a bioeconomy product
and can be utilized in the food and pharmacology indus-
tries for different purposes. While the converting steps of
animal-derived waste into healthy and safe materials
requires complicated processes and needs to be well
organized, the multiple benefits of gelatin provide some
advantages for both waste management and meet the
requirements of the bioactive compound in the food and
pharmacology industries. Health, sensory, and religious
concerns need to be addressed on an experimental scale
initially and then the processes from the collection of
waste to animal waste-derived gelatin consumption should
be considered and improved with advanced biotechnologi-
cal improvements at the industry scale. Further research is
required for the improvement of these value-added mate-
rials, and their marketing and sustainability.
References
Abdullah, M. S. P., Noordin, M. I., Ismail, S. I. M., & Mustapha, N. M.
(2018). Recent advances in the use of animal-sourced gelatine as
natural polymers for food, cosmetics and pharmaceutical applica-
tions. Sains Malaysiana,47(2), 323336.
Abedinia, A., Ariffin, F., Huda, N., & Nafchi, A. M. (2017). Extraction and
characterization of gelatin from the feet of Pekin duck (Anas platyr-
hynchos domestica) as affected by acid, alkaline, and enzyme pretreat-
ment. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules,98,
586594. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.01.139.
Abedinia, A., Mohammadi Nafchi, A., Sharifi, M., Ghalambor, P.,
Oladzadabbasabadi, N., Ariffin, F., & Huda, N. (2020). Poultry gela-
tin: Characteristics, developments, challenges, and future outlooks
as a sustainable alternative for mammalian gelatin. Trends in Food
Science and Technology,104,1426. Available from https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.08.001.
Abiad, M. G., & Meho, L. I. (2018). Food loss and food waste research in
the Arab world: A systematic review. Food Security,10(2), 311322.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0782-7.
Aksun Tu
¨merkan, E. T., Cansu, U
¨., Boran, G., Regenstein, J. M., & O
¨zo˘
gul,
F. (2019). Physiochemical and functional properties of gelatin obtained
from tuna, frog and chicken skins. Food Chemistry,287, 273279.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.088.
Al-Hassan, A. A. (2020). Gelatin from camel skins: Extraction and char-
acterizations. Food Hydrocolloids, 105457. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105457.
Alpizar-Reyes, E., Roma
´n-Guerrero, A., Gallardo-Rivera, R., Varela-
Guerrero, V., Cruz-Olivares, J., & Pe
´rez-Alonso, C. (2018).
Rheological properties of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) seed muci-
lage obtained by spray-drying as a novel source of hydrocolloid.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules,107,817824.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.09.048.
Arshad, M. S., Sohaib, M., Ahmad, R. S., Nadeem, M. T., Imran, A.,
Arshad, M. U., ... Amjad, Z. (2018). Ruminant meat flavor influ-
enced by different factors with special reference to fatty acids.
Lipids in Health and Disease,17(1). Available from https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12944-018-0860-z.
Arsyanti, L., Erwanto, Y., Rohman, A., & Pranoto, Y. (2018). Chemical
composition and characterization of skin gelatin from buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis). International Food Research Journal,25(3),
10951099. Available from http://www.ifrj.upm.edu.my/25%20
(03)%202018/(29).pdf.
Asih, I.D., Kemala, T., & Nurilmala, M. (2019). Halal gelatin extraction
from Patin fish bone (Pangasius hypophthalmus) by-product with
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 437

ultrasound-assisted extraction. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 299, Issue 1). Institute of Physics
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/299/1/012061.
Battista, F., Frison, N., Pavan, P., Cavinato, C., Gottardo, M., Fatone, F.,
... Bolzonella, D. (2020). Food wastes and sewage sludge as feed-
stock for an urban biorefinery producing biofuels and added-value
bioproducts. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology,95
(2), 328338. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6096.
Batu, A., Regenstein, J. M., & Dogan, I. S. (2015). Gelatin issues in
halal food processing for muslim societies. Int. Periodical for the
Languages. Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic,10,3752.
Bello, A. B., Kim, D., Kim, D., Park, H., & Lee, S.-H. (2017).
Engineering and functionalization of gelatin biomaterials: From cell
culture to medical applications. Global Food Gelatin Market -
Growth, Trends and Forecasts,26, 164180, wire, business.
Bichukale, A. D. (2018). Functional Properties of Gelatin Extracted
From Poultry Skin and Bone Waste. International Journal of Pure
& Applied Bioscience,87101. Available from https://doi.org/
10.18782/2320-7051.6768.
Bo
´rawski, P., Bełdycka-Bo
´rawska, A., Szyma´
nska, E. J., Jankowski,
K. J., Dubis, B., & Dunn, J. W. (2019). Development of renewable
energy sources market and biofuels in The European Union. Journal
of Cleaner Production,228, 467484. Available from https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.242.
Braga, N., Rodrigues, F., Beatriz, M., & Oliveira, P. P. (2015). Castanea
sativa by-products: A review on added value and sustainable appli-
cation. Natural Product Research,29(1), 118. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2014.955488.
Business Wire. (2017). Global food gelatin market - growth, trends and
forecasts (2017-2022). Available from: https://www.businesswire.
com/news/home/20171020005567/en/Global-Food Gelatin-Market---
Growth-Trends [October 20, 2017].
Caballero, E., & Soto, C. (2019). Valorization of agro-industrial waste
into bioactive compounds: Techno-economic considerations
(pp. 235252). Springer International Publishing. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10961-5_10.
Cansu, U
¨., & Boran, G. (2015). Optimization of a multi-step procedure
for isolation of chicken bone collagen. Korean Journal for Food
Science of Animal Resources,35(4), 431440. Available from
https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.4.431.
Cantero-Tubilla, B. (2017). Valorization of residues from agricultural
and food industries towards biofuels and bioproducts using bio-
chemical and thermochemical technologies (Doctoral dissertation).
Castaldi, M., van Deventer, J., Lavoie, J. M., Legrand, J., Nzihou, A.,
Pontikes, Y., ... Verstraete, W. (2017). Progress and prospects in
the field of biomass and waste to energy and added-value materials.
Waste and Biomass Valorization,8(6), 18751884. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0049-0.
Chalak, A., Abou-Daher, C., & Abiad, M. G. (2018). Generation of food
waste in the hospitality and food retail and wholesale sectors: Lessons
from developed economies. Food Security,10(5), 12791290.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0841-0.
Chalak, A., Abou-Daher, C., Chaaban, J., & Abiad, M. G. (2016). The global
economic and regulatory determinants of household food waste genera-
tion: A cross-country analysis. Waste Management,48, 418422.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.040.
Costa, M. J., Maciel, L. C., Teixeira, J. A., Vicente, A. A., & Cerqueira,
M. A. (2018). Use of edible films and coatings in cheese preservation:
Opportunities and challenges. Food Research International,107,
8492. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.013.
Cristo
´va
˜o, R. O., Gonc¸alves, C., Botelho, C. M., Martins, R. J. E.,
Loureiro, J. M., & Boaventura, R. A. R. (2015). Fish canning waste-
water treatment by activated sludge: Application of factorial design
optimization. Biological treatment by activated sludge of fish can-
ning wastewater. Water Resources and Industry,10,2938.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2015.03.001.
Dahchour, A., & Hajjaji, S. E. (2019). Management of solid waste in
Morocco (pp. 1333). Springer Water.
Danse, M., Klerkx, L., Reintjes, J., Rabbinge, R., & Leeuwis, C. (2020).
Unravelling inclusive business models for achieving food and nutri-
tion security in BOP markets. Global Food Security,24, 100354.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100354.
Diakosavvas, D., & Frezal, C. (2019). Bio-economy and the sustainabil-
ity of the agriculture and food system.
Du, C., Abdullah, J. J., Greetham, D., Fu, D., Yu, M., Ren, L., ... Lu, D.
(2018). Valorization of food waste into biofertiliser and its field
application. Journal of Cleaner Production,187, 273284.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.211.
Du, L. (2016). Conversion of avian collagen to gelatin and cryoprotec-
tive peptides.
Edjabou, M. E., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., & Astrup, T. F. (2016). Food
waste from Danish households: Generation and composition. Waste
Management,52, 256268. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2016.03.032.
Etxabide, A., Uranga, J., Guerrero, P., & de la Caba, K. (2017).
Development of active gelatin films by means of valorisation of food
processing waste: A review. Food Hydrocolloids,68,192198.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.08.021.
Fan, Z., Cheng, P., Yin, G., Wang, Z., & Han, J. (2020). In situ forming
oxidized salecan/gelatin injectable hydrogels for vancomycin deliv-
ery and 3D cell culture. Null,31(6), 762780. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2020.1717739.
FAOSTAT. (2019). Food agriculture and organization (FAOSTAT).
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. (n.d.).
FAO. (2017). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2017.
Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome: FAO.
Fereidoon, S., Vamadevan, V., Han, P., & Ruchira, S. (2019). Utilization
of marine by-products for the recovery of value-added products.
Journal of Food Bioactives,6.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2015). State of food insecu-
rity in the world. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4671e.pdf.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2016).
The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2016. Contributing to
food security and nutrition for all (200 pp). Rome: FAO. (n.d.).
Food, & Europe. (2016). Data & trends of the European food and drink indus-
try 2016.Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU.
Franzoso, F., Vaca-Garcia, C., Rouilly, A., Evon, P., Montoneri, E.,
Persico, P., ... Francavilla, M. (2016). Extruded versus solvent cast
blends of poly(vinyl alcohol-co-ethylene) and biopolymers isolated
from municipal biowaste. Journal of Applied Polymer Science,133
(9). Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43009.
438 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

Ga
´l, R., Mokrejˇ
s, P., Mra
´zek, P., Pavlaˇ
ckova
´, J., Jana
´ˇ
cova
´, D., &
Orsavova
´, J. (2020). Chicken heads as a promising by-product for
preparation of food gelatins. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland),25(3).
Available from https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030494.
Galanakis, C.M. (2015). Food waste recovery: Processing technologies
& techniques.
Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., & Cossu, R. (2015). Food waste generation and
industrial uses: A review. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.),45,
3241. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.008.
Global, & Summit. (2015). Communique
´global bioeconomy summit
2015 making bioeconomy work for sustainable development commu-
nique
´of the global bioeconomy summit 2015 making bioeconomy
work for sustainable development I. Executive summary:
Cornerstones and measures of a global agenda.
Goedde L., Horii M. & Sanghvi S. (2016). Pursuing the global opportu-
nity in food and agribusiness. Available from http://www.mckinsey.
com/industries/chemicals/ourinsights/pursuing-the-global-opportu-
nity-in-food-andagribusiness. (n.d.).
Grand View Research. (2016). Inc. Gelatin Market Size, Share, Global
Industry Report, 2024, Market Research Report. California: Grand
View Research, Inc.
Guadipati, V. (2013). Fish gelatin: A versatile ingredient for the food
and 439 pharmaceutical industries. Marine proteins and peptides440
biological activities and applications.
Gutierrez, I. R., Tovar, A. K., & Godı
´nez, L. A. (2018). Sustainable sor-
bent materials obtained from orange peel as an alternative for water
treatment. Wastewater and Water Quality. https://doi.org/10.5772/
intechopen.76137.
GMIA (Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America). (2012). Gelatin hand-
book; Atlantic gelatin (pp. 1225). MA, USA: Kraft Foods Global Inc.
Hafemann, E., Battisti, R., Bresolin, D., Marangoni, C., & Machado,
R. A. F. (2020). Enhancing Chlorine-free purification routes of rice
husk biomass waste to obtain cellulose nanocrystals. Waste and
Biomass Valorization,11(12), 65956611. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12649-020-00937-2.
Ho
¨lzl, K., Lin, S., Tytgat, L., Van Vlierberghe, S., Gu, L., &
Ovsianikov, A. (2016). Bioink properties before, during and after
3D bioprinting. Biofabrication,8(3), 032002. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/032002.
Hong, P. K., Low, K. M., Moo, S. Y., & Teh, Y. C. (2020). Preliminary
assessment of non-enzymatic browning and antioxidant activity in
sea cucumber derived gelatin-sugar models.Materials Science
Forum (981, pp. 196201). Trans Tech Publications Ltd. Available
from https://doi.org/10.4028/http://www.scientific.net/MSF.981.196.
Howaili, F., Mashreghi, M., Shahri, N. M., Kompany, A., & Jalal, R.
(2020). Development and evaluation of a novel beneficent antimicro-
bial bioscaffold based on animal waste-fish swim bladder (FSB)
doped with silver nanoparticles. Environmental Research,188,
109823. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109823.
Hussain, A., Hasan, A., Babadaei, M. M. N., Bloukh, S. H., Edis, Z.,
Rasti, B., ... Falahati, M. (2020). Application of gelatin nanoconju-
gates as potential internal stimuli-responsive platforms for cancer
drug delivery. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 318. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.114053.
Jablonsky
´, M., ˇ
Skulcova
´, A., Malvis, A., & ˇ
Sima, J. (2018). Extraction
of value-added components from food industry based and agro-
forest biowastes by deep eutectic solvents. Journal of
Biotechnology,282,4666. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbiotec.2018.06.349.
Jain, S., Dhakal, D., & Anal, A. K. (2017). Bioprocessing of chicken
meat and egg processing industries’ waste to value-added proteins
and peptides. In A. K. Anal (Ed.), Food processing by-products and
their utilization (pp. 367394). Hoboken: Wiley.
Jannat, B., Ghorbani, K., Kouchaki, S., Sadeghi, N., Eslamifarsani, E.,
Rabbani, F., & Beyramysoltan, S. (2020). Distinguishing tissue ori-
gin of bovine gelatin in processed products using LC/MS technique
in combination with chemometrics tools. Food Chemistry,319.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126302.
Jayathilakan, K., Sultana, K., Radhakrishna, K., & Bawa, A. S. (2012).
Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry
and fish processing industries: A review. Journal of Food Science
and Technology,49(3), 278293.
Joardder, M. U. H., & Masud, M. H. (2019). Causes of food waste. Food
preservation in developing countries: Challenges and solutions.
Products using LC/MS technique in combination with chemometrics
tools. Food Chemistry. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-11530-2_2.
Kang, M. G., Lee, M. Y., Cha, J. M., Lee, J. K., Lee, S. C., Kim, J., ...
Bae, H. (2019). Nanogels derived from fish gelatin: Application to
drug delivery system. Marine Drugs,17(4). Available from https://
doi.org/10.3390/md17040246.
Klotz,B.J.,Gawlitta,D.,Rosenberg,A.J.W.P.,Malda,J.,&Melchels,
F. P. W. (2016). Gelatin-methacryloyl hydrogels: Towards
biofabrication-based tissue repair. Trends in Biotechnology,34(5),
394407. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.01.002.
Kosseva, M. R., Kosseva, M. R., & Webb, C. (2020). Sources, charac-
teristics, treatment, and analyses of animal-based food wastes
(pp. 6785). Academic Press. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-817121-9.00004-8.
Kusch, S., Udenigwe, C.C., Gottardo, M., Micolucci, F., & Cavinato, C.
(2014). First-and second-generation valorisation of wastes and resi-
dues occuring in the food supply chain. In Proceedings of the 5th
international symposium on energy from biomass and waste,
Venice, Italy, 1720 November 2014.
Kwak, H. W., Shin, M., Lee, J. Y., Yun, H., Song, D. W., Yang, Y., ...
Lee, K. H. (2017). Fabrication of an ultrafine fish gelatin nanofibrous
web from an aqueous solution by electrospinning. International
Journal of Biological Macromolecules,102, 10921103. Available
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.04.087.
Leal, Filho, W., & Kovaleva, M. (2015). Food waste and sustainable
food waste management in the Baltic sea region. Environmental
Science and Engineering. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-10906-0.
Lee, J. K., Patel, S. K. S., Sung, B. H., & Kalia, V. C. (2020).
Biomolecules from municipal and food industry wastes: An over-
view. Bioresource Technology, 298. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122346.
Leemans, K. (2016). Exploring the role of a technical support agency in
horticulture: Case study of the Centre Technique Horticole de
Tamatave (Madagascar) Universiteit Gent Faculteit Politieke En
Sociale Wetenschappen.
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 439

Lima Junior et al., (2019). Taxas longitudinais de retenc¸a
˜o e evasa
˜o:
uma metodologia para estudo da trajeto
´ria dos estudantes na
Educac¸a
˜o Superior. Ensaio: Avaliac¸a
˜o e Polı
´
ticas Pu
´blicas em
Educac¸a
˜o, Rio de Janeiro, v. 27, n. 102, p. 157178, jan./mar.
2019. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-40362018002701431
Lin, L., Regenstein, J. M., Lv, S., Lu, J., & Jiang, S. (2017). An over-
view of gelatin derived from aquatic animals: Properties and modifi-
cation. Trends in Food Science and Technology,68, 102112.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.08.012.
Liu, D., Nikoo, M., Boran, G., Zhou, P., & Regenstein, J. M. (2015).
Collagen and gelatin. Annual Review of Food Science and
Technology,6, 527557. Available from https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-food-031414-111800.
Loo, C. P. Y., & Sarbon, N. M. (2020). Chicken skin gelatin films with
tapioca starch. Food Bioscience, 35. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fbio.2020.100589.
Maciel, L.-J. E., Odorico., de, M. F. M., Almeida, C. B., Vagnaldo,
F. F., Amaral., ... Philopimin, L. C. M. (2019). Innovative treatment
using tilapia skin as a xenograft for partial thickness burns after a
gunpowder explosion. Journal of Surgical Case Reports. Available
from https://doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjz181.
Mad-Ali, S., Benjakul, S., Prodpran, T., & Maqsood, S. (2016).
Characteristics and gel properties of gelatin from goat skin as
affected by pretreatments using sodium sulfate and hydrogen perox-
ide. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,96(6),
21932203. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7336.
Mad-Ali, S., Benjakul, S., Prodpran, T., & Maqsood, S. (2017).
Characteristics and gelling properties of gelatin from goat skin as
affected by drying methods. Journal of Food Science and
Technology,54(6), 16461654. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13197-017-2597-5.
Magnusson, S., Baldursson, B. T., Kjartansson, H., Thorlacius, G. E.,
Axelsson, I., Rolfsson, O., ... Sigurjonsson, G. F. (2015). Affrumad
rod: edliseiginleikar sem stydja vefjavidgerd. Laeknabladid,101(12),
567573. Available from https://doi.org/10.17992/lbl.2015.12.54.
Maki, Y., & Annaka, M. (2020). Gelation of fish gelatin studied by
multi-particle tracking method. Food Hydrocolloids, 101. Available
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105525.
Mariod, A. A., & Adam, H. F. (2013). Review: Gelatin, source, extrac-
tion and industrial applications. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum,
Technologia Alimentaria,12(2), 135147. Available from http://
www.food.actapol.net/pub/1_2_2013.pdf.
Mazorra-Manzano, M. A., Ramı
´rez-Sua
´rez, J. C., Moreno-Herna
´ndez,
J. M., & Pacheco-Aguilar, R. (2018). Seafood proteins.Proteins in
food processing. Woodhead Publishing.
Mekonnen, T., Mussone, P., & Bressler, D. (2016). Valorization of ren-
dering industry wastes and co-products for industrial chemicals,
materials and energy: Review. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology,
36(1), 120131. Available from https://doi.org/10.3109/
07388551.2014.928812.
Milovanovic, I., & Hayes, M. (2018). Marine gelatine from rest raw
materials. Applied Sciences (Switzerland),8(12). Available from
https://doi.org/10.3390/app8122407.
Mullen, A. M., A
´lvarez, P. O. J. I. ´
C., Hadnadev, T. D., &
Papageorgiou, M. (2015). Classification and target compounds.
Food Waste Recovery. Academic Press.
Naidu, D. S., Hlangothi, S. P., & John, M. J. (2018). Bio-based products
from xylan: A review. Carbohydrate Polymers,179,2841.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.09.064.
Nayak, A., & Bhushan, B. (2019). An overview of the recent trends on
the waste valorization techniques for food wastes. Journal of
Environmental Management,233, 352370. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.041.
Ng, K. S., Yang, A., & Yakovleva, N. (2019). Sustainable waste man-
agement through synergistic utilisation of commercial and domestic
organic waste for efficient resource recovery and valorisation in the
UK. Journal of Cleaner Production,227, 248262. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.136.
Otles., & Kartal. (2018). Food waste valorization. Sustainable food sys-
tems from agriculture to industry.
Parliament, E. (2017). Towards a circular economy - Waste management
in the EU.http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/
2017/581913/EPRS_STU%282017%29581913_EN.pdf.
Patsalou, M., Menikea, K. K., Makri, E., Vasquez, M. I., Drouza, C., &
Koutinas, M. (2017). Development of a citrus peel-based biorefinery
strategy for the production of succinic acid. Journal of Cleaner
Production,166, 706716. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.08.039.
Pawlak, K. (2017). The importance of the bilateral turnover to the EU
and the United States foreign trade in agri-food products. Problemy
Rolnictwa ´
Swiatowego,17(32), 199210. Available from https://
doi.org/10.22630/PRS.2017.17.2.39.
Phadke, G. G., Murthy, N., Pagarkar, A. U., Sofi, F. R., Nissar, K. K., &
Sabha. (2019). Fish processing waste protein hydrolysate: A rich
source of bioactive peptides. Innovative Food Science and Emerging
Technologies, 199214.
Plazzotta, S., & Manzocco, L. (2019). Food waste valorization.Saving food:
Production, supply chain, food waste and food consumption
(pp. 279313). Elsevier. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978012815357-4.000109.
Pleissner, D. (2016). Decentralized utilization of wasted organic material in
urban areas: A case study in Hong Kong. Ecological Engineering,86,
120125. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.021.
Prandi, B., Faccini, A., Lambertini, F., Bencivenni, M., Jorba, M., Van
Droogenbroek, B., ... Sforza, S. (2019). Food wastes from agrifood
industry as possible sources of proteins: A detailed molecular view on
the composition of the nitrogen fraction, amino acid profile and racemi-
sation degree of 39 food waste streams. Food Chemistry,286, 567575.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.01.166.
PRC. (2019). Global religious futures. Pew Research Center.
Qi, J., Zhang, W. w, Feng, X. c, Yu, J. h, Han, M. y, Deng, S. l, ...
Xu, X. L. (2018). Thermal degradation of gelatin enhances its ability
to bind aroma compounds: Investigation of underlying mechanisms.
Food Hydrocolloids,83, 497510. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.03.021.
Qureshi, D., Nayak, S. K., Anis, A., Ray, S. S., Kim, D., Hanh Nguyen,
T. T., & Pal, K. (2020). Introduction of biopolymers: Food and bio-
medical applications. Biopolymer-Based Formulations: Biomedical
and Food Applications,145. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-816897-4.00001-1.
440 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products

Ranganathan, S., Doucet, M., Grassel, C. L., Delaine-Elias, B., Zachos,
N. C., & Barry, E. M. (2019). Human enteroid model. Infection and
Immunity,87, 740718.
Ravindran, R., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2016). Exploitation of food industry
waste for high-value products. Trends in Biotechnology,34(1),
5869. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.10.008.
Ranasinghe, R. A. S. N., Wijesekara, W. L. I., Perera, P. R. D.,
Senanayake, S. A., Pathmalal, M. M., & Marapana, R. A. U. J.
(2020). Functional and bioactive properties of gelatin extracted from
aquatic bioresources Areview.Food Reviews International,144.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2020.1747486.
Roser M., & Ritchie H. (2018). Hunger and undernourishment.
Published online at OurWorldInData.org; https://ourworldindata.org/
hunger-andundernourishment.
Saber, M. (2019). Strategies for surface modification of gelatin-based
nanoparticles. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 183.
Sadeghi, A. S., Ansari, N., Ramezani, M., Abnous, K., Mohsenzadeh,
M., Taghdisi, S. M., & Alibolandi, M. (2018). Optical and electro-
chemical aptasensors for the detection of amphenicols. Biosensors
and Bioelectronics,118, 137152. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bios.2018.07.045.
Sadiq, M. B., Singh, M., & Anal, A. K. (2017). Application of food by-
products in medical and pharmaceutical industries. Food Processing
By-Products and their Utilization,89110. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1002/9781118432921.ch5.
Saeed, F., Afzaal, M., Tufail, T., & Ahmad, A. (2018). Use of natural
antimicrobial agents: A safe preservation approach. IntechOpen, 18.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80869.
Salemdeeb, R., zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Kim, M. H., Balmford, A., &
Al-Tabbaa, A. (2017). Environmental and health impacts of using
food waste as animal feed: A comparative analysis of food waste
management options. Journal of Cleaner Production,140,871880.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.049.
Schuman Foundation. (2013). Schuman Report on Europe. State of the
Union 2013 (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Sghayyar, H. N. M., Lim, S. S., Ahmed, I., Lai, J. Y., Cheong, X. Y.,
Chong, Z. W., ... Loh, H. S. (2020). Fish biowaste gelatin coated
phosphate-glass fibres for wound-healing application. European
Polymer Journal, 122. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eurpolymj.2019.109386.
Shankar., Jaiswal, L., & Rhim, J. W. (2016). Gelatin-based nanocompo-
site films: Potential use in antimicrobial active packaging.
Antimicrobial Food Packaging.
Sharif, R. (2019). Gelatin; Switch back to Halal: A mini-review. PSM
Biological Research,4,6373.
Sharmila, G., Muthukumaran, C., Kumar, N. M., Sivakumar, V. M., &
Thirumarimurugan, M. (2020). Food waste valorization for biopoly-
mer production. Current developments in biotechnology and
bioengineering.
Stiborova, H., Kronusova, O., Kastanek, P., Brazdova, L., Lovecka, P.,
Jiru, M., ... Demnerova, K. (2020). Waste products from the poultry
industry: A source of high-value dietary supplements. Journal of
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology,95(4), 985992.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6131.
Stadnyk, V., Pchelianska, G., Holovchuk, Y., & Dybchuk, L. (2020).
The concept of marketing of balanced development and features of
its implementation in the food market. Agricultural and resource
economics: International scientific E-journal,6(3), 8095.
Sultana., & Ahamad, M. N. U. (2018). Gelatine, collagen, and single cell
proteins as a natural and newly emerging food ingredients.
Preparation and processing of religious and cultural foods.
Tantamacharik, T., Carne, A., Agyei, D., Birch, J., & Bekhit,
A. E. D. A. (2018). Use of plant proteolytic enzymes for meat pro-
cessing.Biotechnological applications of plant proteolytic enzymes
(pp. 4367). Springer International Publishing, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978331997132-2_3.
Thi, N. B. D., Kumar, G., & Lin, C. Y. (2015). An overview of food waste
management in developing countries: Current status and future per-
spective. Journal of Environmental Management,157,220229.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.022.
Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their
implications for sustainable policy development. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling,106, 110123. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016.
Tkaczewska, J., Morawska, M., Kulawik, P., & Zaja˛c, M. (2018).
Characterization of carp (Cyprinus carpio) skin gelatin extracted using
different pretreatments method. Food Hydrocolloids,81,169179.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.02.048.
Trigo, J. P., Alexandre, E. M. C., Saraiva, J. A., & Pintado, M. E.
(2020). High value-added compounds from fruit and vegetable by-
productsCharacterization, bioactivities, and application in the
development of novel food products. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition,60(8), 13881416. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1572588.
Tsang, Y. F., Kumar, V., Samadar, P., Yang, Y., Lee, J., Ok, Y. S., ...
Jeon, Y. J. (2019). Production of bioplastic through food waste valo-
rization. Environment International,127, 625644. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.076.
Tumerkan. (2017). Ton balı˘
gı yan u
¨ru
¨nlerinden u
¨retilen ve so˘
gukta (4
62C) depolanan balık patenin kalitesi u
¨zerine farklı ambalajların
etkilerinin incelenmesi. Fen Bilimleri Enst.
Tu
¨re, H. (2018). Characterization of hydroxyapatite-containing algina-
tegelatin composite films as a potential wound dressing.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules,123, 878888.
Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.143.
Venus, J., Fiore, S., Demichelis, F., & Pleissner, D. (2018). Centralized
and decentralized utilization of organic residues for lactic acid pro-
duction. Journal of Cleaner Production,172, 778785. Available
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.259.
Villacı
´s-Chiriboga, J., Elst, K., Van Camp, J., Vera, E., & Ruales, J.
(2020). Valorization of byproducts from tropical fruits: Extraction
methodologies, applications, environmental, and economic assess-
ment: A review (Part 1: General overview of the byproducts, tradi-
tional biorefinery practices, and possible applications).
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,19(2),
405447. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12542.
World Hunger. (2016). World hunger and poverty facts and statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-
and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/.
Wrap. (2015). Strategies to achieve economic and environmental gains
by reducing food waste. ,http://newclimateeconomy.report/wp-
Sustainable utilization of gelatin from animal-based agrifood waste for the food industry Chapter | 21 441

content/uploads/2015/02/WRAP-NCE_Economic-environmental-
gains-food-waste.pdf.. (n.d.).
Xu, M., Wei, L., Xiao, Y., Bi, H., Yang, H., & Du, Y. (2017).
Physicochemical and functional properties of gelatin extracted from
Yak skin. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules,95,
12461253. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.
2016.11.020.
Yamada, S., Yamamoto, K., Ikeda, T., Yanagiguchi, K., & Hayashi, Y.
(2014). Potency of fish collagen as a scaffold for regenerative medi-
cine. BioMed Research International, 2014. Available from https://
doi.org/10.1155/2014/302932.
Yasmin, R., Shah, M., Khan, S. A., & Ali, R. (2017). Gelatin nanoparti-
cles: A potential candidate for medical applications. Nanotechnology
Reviews,6(2), 191207. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/
ntrev-2016-0009.
Yoon, H. J., Shin, S. R., Cha, J. M., Lee, S. H., Kim, J. H., Do, J. T., ...
Bae, H. (2016). Cold water fish gelatin methacryloyl hydrogel for
tissue engineering application. PLoS One,11(10). Available from
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163902.
Yu, W., Wang, X., Ma, L., Li, H., He, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2016).
Preparation, characterisation and structure of rabbit (Hyla rabbit)
skin gelatine. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology,51(3), 574580. Available from https://doi.org/
10.1111/ijfs.13012.
442 Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products