Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development

Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 2

12-31-2019

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOFU PRODUCTION IN THE

CONTEXT OF CLEANER PRODUCTION: CASE STUDY OF TOFU
HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES IN SALATIGA, INDONESIA
Gefa Satria Fajar Nugroho
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Jl. Diponegoro 52-60 Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

Ravika Sulistyaningrum
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Jl. Diponegoro 52-60 Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

Reindra Prastiwa Melania

Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Jl. Diponegoro 52-60 Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

Widhi Handayani
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Jl. Diponegoro 52-60 Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia,
widhyandayani@gmail.com

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jessd

Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation
Nugroho, Gefa Satria Fajar; Sulistyaningrum, Ravika; Melania, Reindra Prastiwa; and Handayani, Widhi
(2019). ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOFU PRODUCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF CLEANER
PRODUCTION: CASE STUDY OF TOFU HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES IN SALATIGA, INDONESIA. Journal of
Environmental Science and Sustainable Development, 2(2).
Available at: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021

This Case-Based Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Environmental Science at UI
Scholars Hub. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable
Development by an authorized editor of UI Scholars Hub.
 Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development
Volume 2, Issue 2, Page 127–138
ISSN: 2655-6847
Homepage: http://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jessd

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF TOFU PRODUCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF

CLEANER PRODUCTION: CASE STUDY OF TOFU HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES IN
SALATIGA, INDONESIA

Gefa Satria Fajar Nugroho, Ravika Sulistyaningrum, Reindra Prastiwa Melania, Widhi
Handayani*
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Jl. Diponegoro 52-60 Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia

*
Corresponding author: e-mail: widhyandayani@gmail.com

(Received: 7 November 2019; Accepted: 13 December 2019; Published: 31 December 2019)

Abstract
Tofu is a soy-based food that is frequently consumed by Indonesian as a protein source. It is usually
produced by household industries using traditional technology, which currently experiencing
environmental problems with respect to the inefficiency of resource usage and inadequate waste
disposal. Therefore, cleaner production strategy is potential to be implemented by previously mapping
the current problems faced by the industries. This study aims to present an environmental analysis on
tofu production in Salatiga in the context of cleaner production. In addition to provides information
about the current production process and explains waste management performed by the industries, this
study describes how the people in Kalitaman-Salatiga consider environmental issue around the tofu
production. This study was conducted by a qualitative approach using interview, observation, and
documentation. Laboratory analysis was conducted to provide supporting data. The results showed that
only a small proportion of the tofu production process in Kalitaman meets the indicators for cleaner
production in term of using raw materials efficiently and reusing solid wastes. Wastes in the form of
smoke and wastewater are still disposed without prior treatment. The BOD5, COD, and TSS contents
of tofu wastewater exceed the quality standard set by the Indonesian government. Although the
respondents understand the negative impact of pollution to ecosystem, they are not yet concerned
because it does not show a direct detrimental impact on their community. Therefore, raising
environmental awareness is required in order to protect the ecosystem and to prevent environmental
deterioration.

Keywords: cleaner production; environmental awareness; household industry; tofu

1. Introduction
An adequate and continuous food supply is required to fulfill the food security needs of the
Indonesian population. In this respect, tofu and tempeh are legume-based foods that provide
the protein requirements of people, and they are thus eaten frequently. Tofu is an excellent
protein source (100 g contains 30.7 g of protein in addition to 12.69 g of fat and 4.18 g of
carbohydrate) (Alamu, Therese, Mdziniso, & Bussie, 2017). Furthermore, isoflavones,
aglycones, and proteins contained in tofu have antioxidant properties as a protection from lipid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 127

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

oxidation (Dey, Prasad, Kaur, Singh, & Luwang, 2017). Komalasari et al. (2017) explained
that the amount of tofu and tempeh consumed weekly per capita had grown by 3.80% and
2.06%, respectively in 2017, compared with 2013. Furthermore, the annual average
consumption of tofu and tempeh per capita had grown by 3.98% and 2.13%, respectively,
within the same time frame. This indicates that the consumption of both tofu and tempeh has
increased, but tofu is the preferred food.
In Indonesia, tofu and tempeh are usually produced by home industries using traditional
technology. Ridha (2015) reported that these industries produce approximately 57 million EUR
per year and generate income for about 85,000 businesses and 285,000 workers. However,
these soybean processing industries are considered to be inefficient; not only has there been a
reduction in productivity, but the processes employed are considered to be environmentally
damaging (Ridha, 2015). According to Faisal, Gani, Mulana, & Daimon (2016), tofu
wastewater contains high levels of BOD and COD in the range of 6,000–8,000 mg/L and
7,500–14,000 mg/L, respectively. The level of organic substances is still high at above 500
mg/L, even after the wastewater has been treated (Faisal et al., 2016). The Government of
Salatiga (2012) is aware that these tofu industries are polluting the environment, although the
data have not yet been provided, and the government has tried to support some of the tofu
industries by providing biogas installations in Tingkir and Banyuputih, and constructed
Wastewater Treatment Plant in Banyuputih.
In this context, the concept of cleaner production becomes potential to apply. According to
ILO (2013), cleaner production is a strategy to reduce environmental pollution and
simultaneously reducing the use of resources. It focuses mainly on the effort to prevent
unnecessary use of resources and making overall pollution control as the last option. The
application of cleaner production together with good management practices is expected to
increase additional value and increase the productivity of the enterprise itself as well as the
welfare of the workers.
Implementation of cleaner production usually involves three steps, i.e, (1) mapping the
problem faced by the industry; (2) implementing the cleaner production technology; and (3)
evaluating the implementation. Furthermore, the cleaner production concept involves SMEs
making an effort to increase production based on several indicators, which are as follows: (1)
that the disposal of waste is minimized and prevented where possible; (2) that waste is
recovered and reused; and (3) that cleaner and more efficient energy sources are employed
(ILO, 2013). Based on these indicators, this research questioning “Does the tofu production by
traditional technology meet the cleaner production indicators?” Therefore, this study aims to
present an environmental analysis on tofu production in Salatiga in the context of cleaner
production. In case the tofu industries are commonly related to contributors of environmental
pollution, particularly because of its wastewater, the study includes an explanation of how
current tofu waste processing can be seen as an added value for these industries.
While studies on environmental aspect of tofu production mainly focused on the wastewater
and how to solve the problem, studies which explores the environmental behavior of the
workers or population who deal with the environmental aspect is very limited. Meanwhile,
understanding the pro-environmental behavior in population is fundamental to address
challenges in environmental protection and restoration (Bronfman, Cisternas, López-Vázquez,
Maza, & Oyanedel, 2015). Hence, this study also explores the community’s understanding of

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 128

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

the corresponding impact of the environmental destruction. In addition to providing

information about the current production practices performed by tofu household industries in
Salatiga in the context of cleaner production and explaining waste management practices
performed by the household industries, this study describes how the citizens of Kalitaman
consider this issue, and to map subsequent steps that can be taken to overcome these problems.
However, as this research is a qualitative study, the conclusions made cannot be generalized to
other populations.

2. Methods
This study was conducted from February to August 2019 in Kalitaman, Sidorejo subdistrict,
Salatiga. The location was selected based on data obtained from Dinas Perindustrian Kota
Salatiga, which shows that 15 of the town’s 40 tofu industries are located in Kalitaman. This
study employed a qualitative approach based on consideration that industrial environmental
problems mostly related to human activities, which is linked to their behavior as well. As
written by Guba & Lincoln (1994), human behavior cannot be understood without references
to the meanings and purposes of human activities, and this is why qualitative data could be
asserted in order to provide rich insight to human behavior.
In qualitative study, the researcher is a key instrument who collects the data through
documentation, observing behavior of the respondents or participants, and interview (Creswell,
2014). Using snowballing and accidental techniques, nine respondents were selected for
interview; two respondents were owners of tofu industries, two were workers in the industries,
three were residents of Kalitaman, and two were residents of Domas village. We selected two
household tofu industries in Kalitaman based on the consideration that those industries are the
largest among others. It is assumed that the larger industries will use more raw materials,
resources, and possibly generates wastes in a larger amount or volume than other smaller
industries. The latter respondents were selected to obtain information about the impact of tofu
wastewater, which usually flows from Kalitaman to Domas.
The data for this research was collected via in-depth interviews, observations, and research
documentation. In depth interview with the respondents was conducted for twice to three times
and the interview took a period of 20-30 minutes for each respondent per interview. In addition
to the interview, observation was also conducted to enable a description of the waste treatment
and to determine the added value that can be obtained from tofu waste. Picture documentations
were taken to record the process of tofu production, the waste management and the impact of
tofu wastewater to the environment.
In order to support the qualitative study, sample of tofu wastewater was collected and
analyzed for pH and contents of total suspended solids (TSS), BOD5, COD, and N-NH3. The
pH was measured using a Hanna HI 9811-5 kit; TSS and NH3 were determined using a
DR/2000 HACH Direct Reading Spectrophotometer; and BOD5 and COD were analyzed using
the iodometric and open reflux method, based on Kruis (1995). However, it should be noted
that the sample collection was conducted only once because it is only intended as supporting
data, instead as a main data. All data in the form of interview transcripts were analyzed using
a descriptive qualitative method and are presented in a narrative form. The results of the
laboratory analyses were compared to the permissible limit for wastewater of soybean (tofu)
processing industries regulated by The Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Republic of

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 129

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

Indonesia through regulation no. 5/2014 (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, 2014) and to other
relevant studies. Finally, in order to answer the research question proposed in previous section,
we compared all the results to indicators of cleaner production set by ILO (2013).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Tofu Production Process
As previously explained, tofu is produced by industries using traditional technology (Faisal et
al., 2016). While tempeh is fermented using the mold of Rhizopus sp. (Surono, 2016), tofu is
produced by coagulation. Sortation is the first step in the production process, and it is conducted
to guarantee the quality of the tofu (Kaswinarni, 2007). In this study, the industries use local
soybeans to produce the tofu, and after sortation, the soybeans are soaked for approximately
three to four hours. The beans are then ground, which produces a yellowish-white soybean milk
(Figure 1b).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1. (a) soaking; (b) grinding; (c) boiling; (d) coagulation of soybean milk

The milk is then boiled for about 30 minutes until it becomes a soybean porridge-like
substance, and it is then filtered using a white cloth. The filtrate is coagulated by adding whey
to produce white tofu curd, and the residue is usually sold at a very cheap rate and processed
to make mentho, gembus, or to feed cattle. Therefore, the solid waste is not useless, and it can
be processed and reused as other products, as outlined in Widaningrum (2015) and Faisal et al.
(2016).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 130

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

Figure 2. Tofu production

The raw materials for tofu production are soybeans, water, rice husk for fuel, and cooking
oil for frying the tofu. Each cooking process produces eight packages of tofu (measuring
40cm×40cm×3.5cm each), with a volume equal to 5,600 cm3. The process is usually conducted
25 times daily, on average; therefore, 200 packages can be produced in one day.

Table 1. Estimation of raw materials and tofu produced during production

Price per Total cost/
Quantity
Production factors unit income
(unit/day)
(IDR/day) (IDR/day)
1. Raw materials
a. Soybean 375 kg 8,000 3,000,000
b. Water 100 L --- ---
c. Rice husk 1 package 475,000 475,000
d. Cooking oil 0.54 kg 9,000 4,860
e. Worker(s):
Grinding 1 person 75,000 75,000
Cooking 4 persons 75,000 300,000
Frying 3 persons 58,300 175,000
Total production cost 4,025,000
2. Income from selling
a. White tofu 9600 slices 500 4,800,000
b. Fried tofu 6400 slices 200 1,280,000
Total income from tofu production 6,080,000
Profit/day 2,055,000

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 131

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

Based on our measurements, the size of a slice of tofu is 5cm×4cm×3.5cm (or equal to 70
cm ). Therefore, a package of tofu measuring 5600 cm3 is equal to 80 slices, with an average
3

weight per slice of 0.0779 kg/slice. This means that 200 packs are equal to 16,000 slices of
tofu, or 1,246 kg of tofu; 60% of this is white tofu and 40% is fried tofu. Assuming that all the
tofu is sold in one day, the income of an entrepreneur per day can be estimated (and is shown
in Table 1).

3.2 Analysis of Cleaner Production in Tofu Household Industries

The results of this study is compared to indicators of cleaner production as suggested by ILO
(2013), which focus on prevention of waste generation, reuse and recycle process, and the use
of cleaner energy (Table 2). Regarding to the first indicator, we found that the raw materials
are used efficiently. Our study found that 375 kg of soybean per day results in the production
of 1,246 kg of tofu, and the soybean/tofu ratio is 0.300. The report of Haidir & Sudrajat (2014)
showed that a tofu industry in Bandung produced 900 kg of tofu per day from 500 kg of
soybeans, with a soybean/tofu ratio of 0.555. This indicates that tofu production in Kalitaman
is more efficient than that in Bandung, as more tofu is produced from fewer soybeans.
However, the use of water is of concern, mainly because it can be accessed at no cost (Table
1), which could lead to excessive water use behavior.

Table 2. Cleaner production analysis of tofu home industries

Indicators of cleaner
No. Activities Analysis
production (ILO, 2013)
Raw materials are used
The activities meet the
Prevention and efficiently; however, the
indicators of cleaner
minimization of waste use of water requires
production in term of using
1. (prevent waste generation study, as there is currently
raw materials efficiently,
and guarantee efficient use no price for water
however the process still
of resources). available. The production
generates waste.
still generates waste.
Solid waste is processed The reuse and recovery of
Reuse and recycle for use as food, cattle feed, solid waste is conducted.
2. (recovery of materials and and fertilizer; smoke and However, smoke and
waste for productive use). wastewater are released wastewater should be
without being treated. treated prior to release.
Although an appropriate
Diesel fuel and rice husks
machine is used for
Cleaner and efficient are the energy source used
processing, the process
energy (maximize energy in production. These
3. generates smoke. A cleaner
input and minimize processes still generate
production technology is
pollution). smoke due to the
required to improve the
combustion of husks.
process.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 132

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

This study also found that tofu production generates waste in solid, liquid, and gaseous
phases. The wastes generated were soybean milk residue, tofu wastewater, and smoke from
combustion, respectively. The household industries are usually selling the waste or using them
as food for cattle as previously explained. Nevertheless, some efforts are required to treat the
smoke and wastewater prior to release as well as finding a cleaner technology which could
bring cleaner energy in order to reduce emission. Therefore, in general, implementation of
cleaner production in tofu production by household industries is a challenge that needs to be
addressed.

3.3 Characteristics of Kalitaman’s Tofu Wastewater

This study also examines the characteristics of tofu wastewater, because the wastewater is
commonly discharged into the river or tributaries, which lead to river pollution. Table 3
presents the tofu wastewater characteristics of Kalitaman’s tofu industry in comparison to other
tofu wastewater characteristics.

Table 3. Characteristics of tofu wastewater

Concentrations of pollutants in tofu wastewater from Kalitaman compared to
other studies and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulations
Quality
South Jakarta
Parameters Kalitaman- Banda Aceh Other study standard
(Oktariany &
Salatiga (Faisal et al., (Seroja et (Kementerian
Kartohardjono,
(this study) 2014) al., 2018) Lingkungan
2018)
Hidup, 2014)
pH 4.20 4.82 – 5.50 3.80 3.90 6-9
1,050 – 3,130
TSS (mg/L) 2,075 381 – 414 552 200
(MLSS)
BOD5 (mg/L) 766 3,500 – 4,500 2,900 580 150
COD (mg/L) 6,600 5,000 – 8,500 5,981 – 6,525 5,759 300
33.00 –
N-NH3 (mg/L) 24.00 --- --- ---
129.00

It is shown in Table 2 that tofu wastewater of Kalitaman’s tofu industry are similar to those
of Banda Aceh (Faisal et al., 2014), but the pH and BOD5 and NH3-N contents are lower than
those of Banda Aceh. The differences in pH may be related to the usage of vinegar for
coagulation in Kalitaman, and this acidic characteristic may inhibit bacterial degradation of the
tofu wastewater, as expected by the lower BOD5 value.
In comparison to the study of Seroja et al. (2018), it is indicated that the pH of Kalitaman’s
tofu wastewater was a bit higher, which could lead to the higher BOD5 concentration.
However, the finding of Oktariany & Kartohardjono (2018) does not support this reason as the
low pH of South Jakarta’s tofu wastewater was not followed by the low BOD. Instead, its BOD
value was much higher than our finding and the finding of Seroja et al. (2018). However, high
concentration in BOD strongly indicates the need of oxygen in biological oxidation of organic
matter in the wastewater. In regard to COD, all data indicates the high concentration of COD
and the concentrations were in the range of 5,000–8,500 mg/L as reported by Faisal et al.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 133

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

(2014). Nevertheless, these data indicate that the characteristics of tofu wastewater exceeds the
quality standard for tofu wastewater regulated by the Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (2014).

3.4 Tofu Waste in the Perception of Kalitaman and Domas People

Based on the results of interviews, the respondents understand that pollution degrades the
natural environment. They recognized that tofu wastewater causes water pollution as it is
usually discharged into the tributary behind the factories and it flows into Domas village.
Nevertheless, the interviews showed that people did not consider the wastewater to be a
disadvantage, as the materials within it are used to fertilize paddy fields. According to
Dianursanti et al. (2014), tofu wastewater still contains protein, lipids, carbohydrate, and fats.
Therefore, the discharge of tofu wastewater into surface water increases the total nitrogen of
the water. Moreover, a recent study showed that tofu wastewater has a potential to be processed
as liquid fertilizer to support the growth of pepper through lorong garden program (Saenab et
al., 2018) and it is used to fertilize maize (Hidayani et al., 2015). Furthermore, in their opinion
they do not suffer from the water pollution because they do not usually use the water from the
polluted tributary. Instead, they get clean and fresh water from a spring namely Kali Wedok
for their daily life.
The people also understand that the combustion of husks causes air pollution. However, the
smoke resulted from the combustion does not bother the people, because the smoke will be
carried by the wind, and hence, they do not suffer from the smoke. This indicates that the main
focus of the people is not to the detrimental effect of the pollution to natural ecosystem, but
rather to themselves.
This study found that some activities of the industries have put the effort in using the raw
materials efficiently and reuse solid wastes. However, other efforts are required to provide
cleaner energy innovation and minimizing wastewater, as wastewater and smoke are still
released without being treated. Our study found that these industries use diesel to grind the
soybeans and rice husks to boil the soybean milk. According to Sahirman & Ardiansyah (2014),
diesel uses 1.46 MJ/kg tofu and emits 107.13 CO2e g/kg tofu, while firewood uses 9.93 MJ/kg
tofu and emits 1,591.99 CO2e g/kg tofu. The production of smoke also indicates that cleaner
energy usage has not been achieved, and this may be related to the lack of available technology.
Ridha (2015) showed that soy-based food industries in Indonesia face several problems related
to inefficiency, inadequate waste disposal, lack of hygiene, and a low awareness of new
technologies. This situation is in line to the idea of Gorobets (2014) who highlighted human
behaviour, population increase, and limits to technological efficiency as the cause of current
systemic environmental problems.
Alternatives to treat tofu wastes are available, for example by phytoremediation (Seroja et
al., 2018) and using coagulant in combination with membrane technology (Oktariany &
Kartohardjono, 2018) to treat the wastewater. Moreover, other alternatives can be made to
process the wastewater into useful products such as biogas (Ristianingsih et al., 2018; Syaifudin
et al., 2018), and to cultivate Chlorella vulgaris as a source of lipid for biodiesel production
(Dianursanti et al., 2014). The potential of tofu solid wastes to produce bioethanol (Febrianti
et al., 2017) and soybean oil as a potential source of biodiesel (Buchori et al., 2012) is also
reported. The conversion of tofu wastes into useful products does not only give advantage in
preventing pollution, but also providing alternative energy and added value to the industries.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 134

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

Innovation in technology could be also considered to save resources and energy. The use of
LPG to replace wood or husks followed by improving the design of stove for cooking the
soybean porridge has been reported to save 72.2% of energy compared to before replacement
(Darmajana et al., 2013). Nevertheless, human lifestyle change is the key to reduce detrimental
effect of their behavior to the environment (Gorobets, 2014).
This study also found the understanding of people in Kalitaman and Domas regarding to
environmental pollution caused by tofu wastes. They define pollution in relation to its negative
environmental impact; however, as the impact is not directly negative for them, they are not
concerned about it. Pollution only concerns them when it has a direct detrimental effect on their
community. However, when a detrimental effect on the community eventually occurs, the
quality of the ecosystem will have been downgraded to such an extent that amelioration will
be difficult. This situation indicates anthropocentric perspective which is rooted strongly in the
mind of people.
According to Thompson & Barton (1994), anthropocentrics are utilitarian and they value
nature only because of its contribution to their human satisfaction. This paradigm is different
from the eco-centrics, who aim to save nature because it has value that is independent of them.
As the anthropocentric view in environmental issues is a challenge, therefore, a change to eco-
centric behavior is necessary to raise awareness and change human lifestyle. In this case, there
are three approaches presented by Gorobets (2014), i.e. (1) educational policies which focused
on eco-centric behavior rather than profit motives since childhood; (2) integrated knowledge
about environmental problems which is provided by educational programs to raise awareness
and personal responsibility for their lifestyle and the impact to the environment; (3)
environmental research and restoration projects which involved public participation.

4. Conclusion
The tofu production by household industries in Kalitaman did not yet meet the indicators of
cleaner production, although they have used raw materials efficiently and reused solid wastes.
The production still generates solid waste, smoke, and wastewater. The BOD5, COD, and TSS
contents of tofu wastewater are 766 mg/L, 2,075 mg/L, and 6,600 mg/L, which exceed the
quality standard set by the Government of Indonesia. More efforts are needed to provide
cleaner energy and treat the wastewater, as wastewater and smoke are still released without
being treated. The respondents in Kalitaman and Domas understand the negative impact of
pollution to natural ecosystem. However, they are not yet concerned about its impact because
it does not have a direct detrimental impact on their community. Therefore, promoting
environmental awareness in the community in Kalitaman is required, particularly with respect
to preventing environmental degradation before it is too late.

Author Contributions
Reindra Prastiwa Melania developed the background, results and discussion, bibliography.
Gefa Satria Fajar Nugroho developed the methods, results and discussion, bibliography. Ravika
Sulistyaningrum developed the results and discussion, conclusions, bibliography. Widhi
Handayani carried out the results and discussion (specifically on the analysis of the
characteristics of tofu wastewater and analysis of the effects of anthropocentrism), as well as
improving the background.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 135

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

References
Alamu, E. O., Therese, G., Mdziniso, P., & Bussie, M.-D. (2017). Assessment of nutritional
characteristics of products developed using soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) pipeline and
improved varieties. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 3(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1398042
Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., López-Vázquez, E., Maza, C. de la, & Oyanedel, J. C. (2015).
Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in Chilean community.
Sustainability, 7, 14133–14152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71014133
Buchori, L., Sasongko, S. B, Anggoro, D. D., Aryanti, N. (2012). Extracting soybean oil from
tofu waste as raw material for making biodiesel (Pengambilan minyak kedelai dari ampas
tahu sebagai bahan baku pembuatan biodiesel). Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 10(2), 49–53.
https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/ilmulingkungan/article/view/4103/PDF
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitataive, Quantitative, and Mixed Approach.
Jogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Darmajana, D. A., Afifah, N., Novrinaldi, Hanifah, U., & Taufan, A. (2013). Efficiency of
Water and Energy Use Based on Cleaner Production in Small Tofu Industry: A Case Study
of SME Tofu “Sari Rasa” Subang. Pangan 22(4), 373–384.
https://jurnalpangan.com/index.php/pangan/article/view/140/0
Dey, A., Prasad, R., Kaur, S., Singh, J., & Luwang, M. D. (2017). Tofu: Technological and
nutritional potential. Indian Food Industry Magazine, 36(3), 8–24.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323676422_Tofu_technological_and_nutritional
_potential
Dianursanti, Rizkytata, B. T., Gumelar, M. T., & Abdullah, T. H. (2014). Industrial tofu
wastewater as a cultivation medium of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. Energy Procedia, 47,
56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.196
Effendi, H., Seroja, R., & Hariyadi, S. (2019) Response surface method application in tofu
production liquid waste treatment. Indonesian Journal of Chemistry, 19(2), 298–304.
https://doi.org/10.22146/ijc.31693
Faisal, M., Mulana, F., Alam, P. N., & Daimon, H. (2014). Wastewater characteristics from
tofu processing facilities in Banda Aceh. The Proceedings of The 4th Annual International
Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah). http://www.jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/AICS-
SciEng/article/view/2437
Faisal, M., Gani, A., Mulana, F., & Daimon, H. (2016). Treatment and utilization of industrial
tofu waste in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 28(3), 501–507.
https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2016.19372
Febrianti, F., Syamsu, K., & Rahayuningsih, M. (2017) Bioethanol production from tofu waste
by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) using microbial consortium.
International Journal of Technology, 5, 898–908. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v8i5.872
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitatitve research. In N. K.
Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105–117).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gorobets, A. (2014). Eco-centric policy for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 64, 654–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 136

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

Government of Salatiga. (2012). Buku Putih Sanitasi Kota Salatiga Provinsi Jawa Tengah.
http://ppsp.nawasis.info/dokumen/perencanaan/sanitasi/pokja/bp/kota.salatiga/BAB%203-
%20status%202%20juli%202012.pdf
Haidir, M., & Sudrajat, A. (2014). Water Footrpint of Tofu and Tempeh Consumption in
Bandung (Water Footprint Konsumsi Tahu dan Tempe di Kota Bandung). Jurnal Tehnik
Lingkungan, 20(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.5614/jtl.2014.20.1.3
Hidayani, H., Sufardi, S., & Hakim, L. (2015). Tofu Waste to Improve Chemical and Biological
Properties of Soils and Sweet Corn (Zea mays var. Saccharata sturt L.) (Limbah Tahu untuk
Memperbaiki Sifat Kimia dan Biologi Tanah serta Hasil Tanaman Jagung Manis (Zea mays
var. Saccharata sturt L.)). Jurnal Manajemen Sumberdaya Lahan, 4(1), 572–578.
https://onesearch.id/Record/IOS1725.article-7159
ILO (International Labour Organization). (2013). Clean Production to Improve Productivity
(Produksi Bersih meningkatkan Produktivitas). Jakarta: ILO.
Kaswinarni, F. (2007). Technical Study on Tofu and Solid Waste Liquid Processing Industry:
Case Study of Semarang Tandang Industry, Simplified Kendal and Crow Crow Boyolali
(Kajian Teknis Pengolahan Limbah Padat dan Cair Industri Tahu: Studi Kasus Industri
Tahu Tandang Semarang, Sederhana Kendal dan Gagak Sipat Boyolali). Semarang:
Universitas Diponegoro.
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup. (2014). Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik
Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 tentang Baku Mutu Air Limbah. Jakarta.
http://neo.kemenperin.go.id/files/hukum/17%20Permen%20LH%20th%202014%20No.%
2005%20Baku%20Mutu%20Air%20Limbah.pdf
Komalasari, W. B., Sabarella, Wahyuningsih, S., Manurung, M., Herwulan, M., Sehusman,
Supriati, Y., & Rinawati. (2017). Statistik Konsumsi Pangan Tahun 2017. Jakarta:
Kementerian Pertanian. http://epublikasi.setjen.pertanian.go.id/arsip-perstatistikan/163-
statistik/statistik-konsumsi/531-statistik-konsumsi-pangan-tahun-2017
Kruis, F. (1995). Environmental Chemistry Selected Analytical Methods: Laboratory manual.
Delft: IHE.
Oktariany, A., & Kartohardjono, S. (2018). Effect of coagulant dosage on tofu industry
wastewater treatment in combination with ultrafiltration process using polysulfone
membrane. E3S Web of Conferences, 67, 04004.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20186704004
Ridha, M. (2015). Impact Sheet - SWITCH Asia project: Scaling Sustainable Consumption and
Production - Promoting eco-friendly production in Indonesian tofu and tempeh industry.
https://www.switch-asia.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Switch_Asia_Impact_Sheet_-_2015_-
_Soybean_Processing__SCoPE__-_screen.pdf
Ristianingsih, D., Dharmawan, A. H., & Putri, E. I. K. (2018). Analysis of Sustainability of
Rural Tofu Waste Biogas (Case Study in Kalisari Village, Banyumas Regency) (Analisis
Keberlanjutan Biogas Limbah Tahu Pedesaan (Studi Kasus Di Desa Kalisari, Kabupaten
Banyumas)). Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 16(2), 104–112.
https://doi.org/10.14710/jil.16.2.104-112
Saenab, S., Henie, M., Al, I., Rohman, F., & Arifin, A. N. (2018). Utilization of Tofu Industry
Liquid Waste as Liquid Organic Fertilizer (POC) to Support the Makassar City (Loose)
Aisle Garden Program (Pemanfaatan Limbah Cair Industri Tahu Sebagai Pupuk Organik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 137

Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development 2(2): 127–138

Cair (POC) Guna Mendukung Program Lorong Garden (Longgar) Kota Makassar).
Prosiding Seminar Nasional Megabiodiversitas Indonesia. http://journal.uin-
alauddin.ac.id/index.php/psb/article/view/5935
Sahirman, S., & Ardiansyah. (2014). Assessment of Tofu Carbon Footprint in Banyumas,
Indonesia - Towards “Greener” Tofu. Proceeding of International Conference on Research,
Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Sciences 2014.
https://eprints.uny.ac.id/11443/
Seroja, R., Efendi, H., & Hariyadi, S. (2018). Tofu wastewater treatment using vetiver grass
(Vetiveria zizanioides) and zeliac. Applied Water Science 8(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0640-y
Surono, I. S. (2016). Ethnic Fermented Foods and Beverages of Indonesia. In J. P. Tamang
(Ed.), Ethnic Fermented Foods and Alcoholic Beverages of Asia (pp. 341–382). India:
Springer.
Syaifudin, N., Nurkholis, Handika, R., & Setyobudi, R. H. (2018) The importance of credit
program scheme on waste to energy program in Indonesia: Case study on tofu industry.
MATEC Web of Conferences, 164, 01032.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201816401032
Thompson, Z. C. S. & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward
the Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9
Widaningrum, I. (2015). Environmentally Friendly (Waste-Free) Tofu Making Technology
(Teknologi Pembuat Tahu Yang Ramah Lingkungan (Bebas Limbah)). Jurnal Dedikasi,
12, 14–21. http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/dedikasi/article/view/2476

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1021 138