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

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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
EFSA Journal
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9337
Primary Topic
Agricultural safety and regulations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Lieve Herman, Maarten Nauta, Valeria Bortolaia, Ana Allende et al.
EFSA Journal
Agricultural safety and regulations
article

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

Lieve Herman, Maarten Nauta, Valeria Bortolaia, Ana Allende, Lapo Mughini‐Gras, Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez, Sara Bover‐Cid, Panagiotis Skandamis, Avelino Álvarez‐Ordóñez, Laurent Guillier, Liesbeth Jacxsens, Wietske Dohmen, John Griffin, Angel Ortiz‐Peláez, Alessandra De Cesare, Elisabetta Suffredini, Luísa Peixe, Jakob Ottoson, Kamela Kryemadhi
article en

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 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.

EFSA JournalVol. 23(4)
European Food Safety Authority
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Agricultural safety and regulations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.