Evaluation of a fluidised catalytic cracking co-processing method for the production of renewable fuels using Category 3 animal fat and used cooking oils

IF 3.3 3区 农林科学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Ana Allende, Valeria Bortolaia, Sara Bover-Cid, Wietske Dohmen, Laurent Guillier, Lieve Herman, Liesbeth Jacxsens, Maarten Nauta, Lapo Mughini-Gras, Jakob Ottoson, Luisa Peixe, Fernando Perez-Rodriguez, Panagiotis Skandamis, Elisabetta Suffredini, Alessandra De Cesare, Pablo Fernandez Escamez, John Griffin, Kamela Kryemadhi, Angel Ortiz-Pelaez, Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez
{"title":"Evaluation of a fluidised catalytic cracking co-processing method for the production of renewable fuels using Category 3 animal fat and used cooking oils","authors":"EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ),&nbsp;Ana Allende,&nbsp;Valeria Bortolaia,&nbsp;Sara Bover-Cid,&nbsp;Wietske Dohmen,&nbsp;Laurent Guillier,&nbsp;Lieve Herman,&nbsp;Liesbeth Jacxsens,&nbsp;Maarten Nauta,&nbsp;Lapo Mughini-Gras,&nbsp;Jakob Ottoson,&nbsp;Luisa Peixe,&nbsp;Fernando Perez-Rodriguez,&nbsp;Panagiotis Skandamis,&nbsp;Elisabetta Suffredini,&nbsp;Alessandra De Cesare,&nbsp;Pablo Fernandez Escamez,&nbsp;John Griffin,&nbsp;Kamela Kryemadhi,&nbsp;Angel Ortiz-Pelaez,&nbsp;Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>An alternative processing method for the production of renewable fuels from rendered animal fats, pretreated using standard processing methods 1–5 or method 7 and used cooking oils, derived from Category 3 animal by-products, was assessed. The alternative method is based on a fluidised catalytic cracking co-processing treatment with a preheat stage by at least 145°C and a pressure of at least 1.4 barg for at least 13 s, followed by a reactor stage by at least 500°C for 2 s. The applicant selected the use of spores of pathogenic bacteria as primary indicators without carrying out a full hazard identification, which is acceptable as per previous EFSA evaluations. The EFSA BIOHAZ Panel considers that the application and supporting literature contain sufficient evidence to support that the alternative method can achieve a reduction of at least 12 log<sub>10</sub> of <i>C. botulinum</i> spores and 5 log<sub>10</sub> of the spores of other pathogenic bacteria. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan contained some inadequacies: the reception of raw materials should be considered a prerequisite (with acceptance criteria) rather than a critical control point and quantitative limits for temperature and holding time at the reactor should be defined. The information provided by the applicant suggests that appropriate corrective actions are in place for dealing with risks associated with interdependent processes and with the intended end use of the products. The applicant also considers as part of the alternative processing method the operation under an unplanned shutdown. EFSA only assesses the alternative processing methods under normal operating conditions. Thus, the procedures under an unplanned shutdown were not assessed as part of the alternative processing method. Overall, the alternative method under evaluation is considered equivalent to the processing methods currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"23 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9337","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EFSA Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9337","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An alternative processing method for the production of renewable fuels from rendered animal fats, pretreated using standard processing methods 1–5 or method 7 and used cooking oils, derived from Category 3 animal by-products, was assessed. The alternative method is based on a fluidised catalytic cracking co-processing treatment with a preheat stage by at least 145°C and a pressure of at least 1.4 barg for at least 13 s, followed by a reactor stage by at least 500°C for 2 s. The applicant selected the use of spores of pathogenic bacteria as primary indicators without carrying out a full hazard identification, which is acceptable as per previous EFSA evaluations. The EFSA BIOHAZ Panel considers that the application and supporting literature contain sufficient evidence to support that the alternative method can achieve a reduction of at least 12 log10 of C. botulinum spores and 5 log10 of the spores of other pathogenic bacteria. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan contained some inadequacies: the reception of raw materials should be considered a prerequisite (with acceptance criteria) rather than a critical control point and quantitative limits for temperature and holding time at the reactor should be defined. The information provided by the applicant suggests that appropriate corrective actions are in place for dealing with risks associated with interdependent processes and with the intended end use of the products. The applicant also considers as part of the alternative processing method the operation under an unplanned shutdown. EFSA only assesses the alternative processing methods under normal operating conditions. Thus, the procedures under an unplanned shutdown were not assessed as part of the alternative processing method. Overall, the alternative method under evaluation is considered equivalent to the processing methods currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011.

Abstract Image

评价用3类动物脂肪和用过的食用油生产可再生燃料的流化催化裂化协同加工方法
评估了一种从动物脂肪中生产可再生燃料的替代加工方法,使用标准加工方法1-5或方法7进行预处理,并使用来自第3类动物副产品的食用油。该替代方法基于流化催化裂化共处理,具有至少145°C的预热阶段和至少1.4 bar的压力,持续至少13 s,随后是至少500°C的反应器阶段,持续2 s。申请人选择使用致病菌孢子作为主要指标,而没有进行完整的危害识别,根据之前的EFSA评估,这是可以接受的。欧洲食品安全局BIOHAZ小组认为,申请和支持文献包含足够的证据来支持替代方法可以减少至少12 log10的肉毒杆菌孢子和5 log10的其他致病菌孢子。危害分析和关键控制点计划包含一些不足之处:应将原材料的接收视为先决条件(带有验收标准),而不是关键控制点,并应定义反应器温度和保温时间的定量限制。申报人提供的信息表明,适当的纠正措施已到位,以处理与相互依赖过程和产品预期最终用途相关的风险。申请人还考虑将意外停机下的操作作为备选处理方法的一部分。欧洲食品安全局只评估在正常操作条件下的替代加工方法。因此,在计划外停机情况下的程序没有作为替代处理方法的一部分进行评估。总的来说,正在评估的替代方法被认为等同于目前在欧盟委员会法规(EU) No 142/2011中批准的处理方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal Veterinary-Veterinary (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
21.20%
发文量
422
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: The EFSA Journal covers methods of risk assessment, reports on data collected, and risk assessments in the individual areas of plant health, plant protection products and their residues, genetically modified organisms, additives and products or substances used in animal feed, animal health and welfare, biological hazards including BSE/TSE, contaminants in the food chain, food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids, food additives and nutrient sources added to food, dietetic products, nutrition and allergies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信