Comparative LCA of Alternative Scenarios for Waste Treatment: The Case of Food Waste Production by the Mass-Retail Sector

Mondello, Giovanni; Salomone, Roberta; Ioppolo, Giuseppe; Saija, Giuseppe; Sparacia, Sergio; Lucchetti, Maria Claudia

doi:10.3390/su9050827

Cited by 86 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect is not reduced by the composting process which has even a higher impact on Climate Change category. The results of the study are also confirmed by the study of Mondello et al 2017 [28], which report very similar values for acidification, eutrophication and climate change. In the study of Mondello et al [28] four scenarios are compared: landfill, incineration, composting, biogas and insects production with the food waste, to obtain proteins.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The results of the study are also confirmed by the study of Mondello et al 2017 [28], which report very similar values for acidification, eutrophication and climate change. In the study of Mondello et al [28] four scenarios are compared: landfill, incineration, composting, biogas and insects production with the food waste, to obtain proteins. Of all the compared scenarios biogas confirms to be the more convenient at least in the Climate change category.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Food waste anaerobic digestion in Umbria region (Italy): scenario analysis on the use of digestate through LCA

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The project irexfo LIFE16 deals mainly with food waste and expired food prevention and reduction, but also with its valorization in biogas plants. Due to legal aspects the cycle of food waste needs to be closed returning the anaerobic digestate to the soil and so providing fertilizer for the cultivation and production of new crops. This is not possible at the moment in Italy because of the Decree of the 25th February 2016 on the disposal of digestate produced from raw materials which are not considered biomasses. The EU Regulation of 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the council of the 5th of June 2019, identifies some Component Materials Categories (CMCs), which can be considered as fertilizers; among them we find digestate other than fresh crop digestate, which includes digestate produced from bio-waste and another category on food industry wastes. For this reason, it is meaningful to compare the two possible alternatives: use of food waste digestate as it is in the field and use of food waste digestate after composting it (as currently required by the Italian law).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Food waste anaerobic digestion in Umbria region (Italy): scenario analysis on the use of digestate through LCA

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CML-IA baseline method elaborates the problem-oriented approach. The CML method support that elevated level of detail allowing to develop a specific environmental picture of each scenario [31]. The GWP was applied and the characterization model, as developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was selected for the development of characterization factors.…”

Section: Life Cycle Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Packaging Films Made from LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT Blends in South Korea

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bio-plastics such as polylactic acid (PLA) have been investigated as a sustainable alternative to petroleum-based plastics. In this study, the carbon footprint of packaging films made from LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT blends was measured with three different waste scenarios based on the database of South Korea using life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA followed ISO standards, and was a cradle-to-grave analysis. The functional unit was defined as 400,000 pieces of a film of 300 × 250 mm with thickness of 0.06 mm for packaging bag manufacturing. The waste treatments considered were incineration, landfill, and recycling applied with the present conditions of South Korea. Under the present analysis conditions, the PLA film with landfill was the most effective for reducing carbon emission. The PLA/PBAT with incineration was the worst case among the packaging films tested. Incineration was the worst choice of waste treatment in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Generally, landfill may not be the best option in terms of sustainability but landfill was a better option for waste treatment than incineration. In addition, before bio-plastics are blended with other material, the blending material should first be evaluated for its environmental impact. The blended bio-plastics with PLA, such as PLA/PBAT, can be more inimical to the environment in terms of carbon dioxide emissions than existing materials, such as LDPE.

show abstract

“…Quantification of environmental impacts was performed for four impact categories (global warming potential, land use, water footprint and energy demand). Calculations were based on average values from numerous LCA studies performed for food waste treatment with anaerobic digestion [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] , composting [45,49,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57], incineration [38,45,47,48,50], wastewater treatment [58][59][60][61], feeding to pets [62][63][64] and other methods which represent average impact values of all other waste treatment methods. Calculated average LCA impacts were multiplied by the relevant mass flows of avoidable food waste at household level to determine the overall effect of avoidable food waste treatment with current technologies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waste Food not Eat: Food Waste Treatment or Obesity - Selection of Sustainable Strategies for Dealing with Food Waste and Obesity

Smetana¹,

Profeta²,

Bhatia³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This theoretical model-based study is aimed to answer an applied but system-related question, relevant to multiple current studies and general audience: Is it better for human health and the environment to consume extra portion of food or throw it in the garbage (for further treatment)? The question has deep conceptual roots and requires a holistic approach to assessing a few complex systems: food production, food waste treatment and medical treatment activities. According to estimations, there are around 3.05-7.2 Mtonnes of avoidable food waste generated by German consumers at the household level. Simultaneously, high levels of food overconsumption are also observed at the household level. Thus, more than half of all Germans are overweight and obese and a high share of them require additional medical treatment resources. The study compared the environmental impact of treating potentially avoidable food waste with current waste management system in Germany to the hypothetical scenario of consuming such amount of food by the existing population. The results indicated that current waste management system is more beneficial for the environment than consuming excessive food by German population and requesting related medical services in categories of global warming potential (0.128 versus 0.6-2.4 Mtonnes CO 2 eq.), energy demand (-21 versus 16-66 PJ) and water footprint (-1607 versus 13.2-53 million m 3).However, land use impact allocated to other healthcare due to food consumed by humans is 13-80% lower than current waste treatment. Another danger of consuming excessive food relates to accumulated risks and further increased demand for health services. Following years would worsen the situation, making a choice for “food waste avoided” diet unfeasible. The results received do not allow for a simple Sergiy Smetana 1 et al. answer on selecting more sustainable strategies of dealing with an excessive amount of food in every specific case. However, they allow to indicate preferable conditions for dealing with excessive food in model conditions, which account for health status of household members or group of people (population), nutrient density and amount of food, and time frame. Time factor is one of the key factors defining preferences for food-wasting or consumption.

show abstract

Comparative LCA of Alternative Scenarios for Waste Treatment: The Case of Food Waste Production by the Mass-Retail Sector

Cited by 86 publications

References 24 publications

Food waste anaerobic digestion in Umbria region (Italy): scenario analysis on the use of digestate through LCA

Food waste anaerobic digestion in Umbria region (Italy): scenario analysis on the use of digestate through LCA

Carbon Footprint of Packaging Films Made from LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT Blends in South Korea

Waste Food not Eat: Food Waste Treatment or Obesity - Selection of Sustainable Strategies for Dealing with Food Waste and Obesity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About