Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 2167–2174 | Cite as

Evaluation of physical and chemical properties of citric acid industrial waste

  • Sirisak Tanpong
  • Anusorn Cherdthong
  • Bundit Tengjaroenkul
  • Urai Tengjaroenkul
  • Sawitree WongtangtintharnEmail author
Regular Articles


This study aimed to evaluate physical and chemical properties and nutritive values of citric acid by-product (CABP) from cassava and to compare its properties with those of cassava root meal (CRM). The physical properties analyzed were color, bulk density, angle of repose, particle size distribution, and ultrastructure morphology. The chemical properties were determined using proximate analysis. Regarding the physical results, the CABP’s color was darker, and its bulk density was greater by approximately 64.18% than those of the CRM (p < 0.05). The CABP’s angle of repose was significantly lower (p < 0.05) with a freer flow, and the particle size was classified as small with fewer polygonal starch granules but more than the CRM. Regarding the chemical composition results, the CABP contained 0.71% citric acid with pH 4.68 whereas crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber, and gross energy were 6.11%, 2.39%, 18.26%, and 3588.10 kcal/kg, respectively. CABP showed greater and significantly different crude proteins and ether extracts but less gross energy than the CRM (p < 0.05). The results imply that the CABP could be an alternative energy source and used as a CRM substitution in animal feed formulation.


By-product Cassava Citric acid Nutritive value Feedstuff 



The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the Fermentation Research Center for Value Added Agricultural Products Faculty of Technology, Khon Kaen University (KKU), and Research Group on Toxic Substances in Livestock and Aquatic Animals, KKU, for providing the use of the research facilities.

Funding information

This work received a financial support from the Fermentation Research Center for Value Added Agricultural Products Faculty of Technology, Khon Kaen University (KKU), and Research Group on Toxic Substances in Livestock and Aquatic Animals, KKU. This work was also supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) contract grant IRG5980010.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Ahmed OH, Husni MHA, Awang Noor AG, Hanafi MM. 2002. The removal and burning pineapple residue in pineapple cultivation on tropical peat: An Economic Viability Comparison. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science, 25, 47–51.Google Scholar
  2. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). 2008. Method of determining and expressing fineness of feed materials by sieving. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Andriani Y, Safitri R, Abun. 2015. Improvement protein quality of cassava peel by solid substrate fermentation using cellulolytic microbial consortium. Scientific Papers-Animal Science Series: Lucrări Ştiinţifice-Seria Zootehnie, 63, 250–253.Google Scholar
  4. Angumeenal AR, Venkappayya D. 2013. An overview of citric acid production. Food Science and Technology, 50, 367–370.Google Scholar
  5. Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). 2014. Feed inspector’s manual, 5th ed. Association of American Feed Control Officials Inspection and Sampling Committee, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Association of Analytical Chemists, Arlington, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Carr RL. 1965. Classifying flow properties of solids. Chemical Engineering Journal, 72, 69–72.Google Scholar
  8. Dhillon GS, Brar SK, Kaur S, Verma M. 2013. Bioproduction and extraction optimization of citric acid from Aspergillus niger by rotating drum type solid-state bioreactor. Industrial Crops and Products, 41, 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elferink EV, Nonhebel S, Moll HC. 2008. Feeding livestock food residue and the consequences for the environmental impact of meat. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1227–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ezea I, Chiejina NV, Ogbonna JC. 2015. Biological production of citric acid in solid state cultures of Aspergillus niger. ChemXpress, 8, 201–207.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick JJ, Barringer SA, Iqbal T. 2004. Flow property measurement of food powders and sensitivity of Jenike’s hopper design methodology to the measured values. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 61, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrman T. 2001. Evaluating Feed Components and Finished Feeds. Kansas State University, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Huang M, Zhang S. 2011. Starch degradation and nutrition value improvement in corn grits by solid state fermentation technique with coriolus versicolor. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 42, 1343–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Junior NMP, Bruno DG. 2012. Impacts of feed texture and particle size on broiler and layer feeding patterns. World’s Poultry Congress 5–9 August 2012, Salvador, Brazil.Google Scholar
  15. Kushwaha DK, Thomas EV, Maiti B, Ghosh BC, Baishakhi D. 2015. Assessment and optimization of bulk density and angle of repose of tea leaves for metering device using function desirability. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology, 4, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li X, Li G, Li J, Yu Y, Feng Y, Chen Q, Komarneni S, Wang Y. 2016. Producing petrochemicals from catalytic fast pyrolysis of corn fermentation residual by-products generated from citric acid production. Renewable Energy, 89, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ma XF, Yu JG, Wan JJ. 2006. Urea and ethanolamine as a mixed plasticizer for thermoplastic starch. Carbohydrate Polymers, 64, 267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Max B, Salgado JM, Rodríguez N, Cortés S, Converti A, Domínguez JM. 2010. Biotechnological production of citric acid. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 41, 862–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDonald DE, Pethick DW, Mullan BP, Hapson DJ. 2001. Increasing viscosity of the intestinal contents alters small intestinal structure and intestinal growth, stimulates proliferation of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in newly-weaned pigs. British Journal of Nutrition, 86, 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohamad K, Abdul W, Hanafi I, Nadras O. 2011. Characterization of citric acid-modified tapioca starch and its influence on thermal behavior and water absorption of high-density polyethylene/natural rubber/thermoplastic tapioca starch blends. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering, 50, 748–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ndou SP, Archibold GB, Chimonyo M. 2013. Prediction of voluntary feed intake from physicochemical properties of bulky feeds in finishing pigs. Livestock Science, 155, 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nwabanne JT. 2009. Drying characteristics and engineering properties of fermented ground cassava. African Journal of Biotechnology, 8, 873–876.Google Scholar
  23. Papagianni M. 2007. Advances in citric acid fermentation by Aspergillus niger: biochemical aspects, membrane transport and modeling. Biotechnology Advances, 25, 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Philip KT. 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 2853–2867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanni L, Maziya DB, Akanya J, Okoro CI, Alaya Y, Egwuonwu CV, Okechukwu R, Ezedinma C, Akoroda M, Lemchi J, Okoro E, Dixon A. 2005. Standards for cassava products and guidelines for export. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  26. Sarangbin S, Watanapokasin Y. 1999. Yam bean starch: a novel substrate for citric acid production by the protease-negative mutant strain of Aspergillus niger. Carbohydrate Polymers, 38, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SAS. 2015. SAS University edition: Statistic, Version 6th ed. SAS inst. Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  28. Stupak M, Vandeschuren H, Gruissem W, Zhang P. 2006. Biotechnological approaches to cassava protein improvement. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 17, 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suiryanrayna MVAN, Ramana JV. 2015. Review of the effects of dietary organic acids fed to swine. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 6, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Syamsu JA, Muhammad Y, Abdullah A. 2015. Evaluation of physical properties of feedstuffs in supporting the development of feed mill at farmers group scale. Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies, 2, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tuan VV, Delgado-Saborit JM, Harrison RM. 2015. Review: Particle number size distributions from seven major sources and implications for source apportionment studies. Atmospheric Environment, 122, 114–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Udensi EA, Osemele HO, Iweala OO. 2006. Effect of fermentation and germination on the physicochemical properties of Mucuna cochinchinens protein isolate. African Journal of Biotech, 5, 896–900.Google Scholar
  33. Vasconcelos LM, Brito AC, Carmo CD, Oliveira PH, Oliveira EJ. 2017. Phenotypic diversity of starch granules in cassava germplasm. Genetics and Molecular Research, 16, 1–15.Google Scholar
  34. Wiseman J. 1987. Feeding non-ruminant livestock. Butterworth & Co.Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sirisak Tanpong
    • 1
  • Anusorn Cherdthong
    • 1
  • Bundit Tengjaroenkul
    • 2
  • Urai Tengjaroenkul
    • 3
  • Sawitree Wongtangtintharn
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Animal Science, Faculty of AgricultureKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations