Allende Ana, Bortolaia Valeria, Bover-Cid Sara, Dohmen Wietske, Guillier Laurent, Herman Lieve, Jacxsens Liesbeth, Nauta Maarten, Mughini-Gras Lapo, Ottoson Jakob, Peixe Luisa, Perez-Rodriguez Fernando, Skandamis Panagiotis, Suffredini Elisabetta, De Cesare Alessandra, Escamez Pablo Fernandez, Griffin John, Kryemadhi Kamela, Ortiz-Pelaez Angel, Alvarez-Ordóñez Avelino
EFSA J. 2025 Apr 9;23(4):e9337. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9337. eCollection 2025 Apr.
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 of spores and 5 log 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.
评估了一种从经标准加工方法1 - 5或方法7预处理的提炼动物脂肪以及来自第3类动物副产品的废食用油生产可再生燃料的替代加工方法。该替代方法基于流化催化裂化共处理工艺,包括至少145°C的预热阶段和至少1.4 barg的压力,持续至少13秒,随后是至少500°C的反应器阶段,持续2秒。申请人在未进行全面危害识别的情况下选择使用病原菌孢子作为主要指标,根据欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)先前的评估,这是可以接受的。EFSA生物危害小组认为,该应用及相关文献包含足够证据支持该替代方法能够使病原菌孢子数量至少减少12个对数级,其他病原菌孢子数量减少5个对数级。危害分析与关键控制点(HACCP)计划存在一些不足之处:原材料的接收应被视为一个前提条件(包括验收标准)而非关键控制点,并且应确定反应器温度和保持时间的定量限制。申请人提供的信息表明,已制定适当的纠正措施来应对与相互依存的工艺以及产品预期最终用途相关的风险。申请人还将计划外停机情况下的操作视为替代加工方法的一部分。EFSA仅评估正常操作条件下的替代加工方法。因此,计划外停机情况下的程序未作为替代加工方法的一部分进行评估。总体而言,所评估的替代方法被认为等同于欧盟委员会法规(EU)No 142/2011中目前批准的加工方法。