Life cycle assessment of peach transportation considering trade-off between food loss and environmental impact

Abstract

Purpose We evaluated the environmental impacts of the peach transportation process using life cycle assessment with the damage area ratio as an indicator to assess both food loss and the environmental burden. A hot spot analysis was also conducted to identify the most relevant impact categories and processes in the peach life cycle. Methods The environmental burden of the peach life cycle was assessed by using a mass-based functional unit (kg of undamaged peaches). The environmental impact of the packaging scenario (using plastic packaging and cardboard during transportation) in the peach life cycle was compared with that of the nonpackaging scenario (using cardboard only). Vibration tests for transportation were performed for several transportation distances to determine the damage area ratios. An impact assessment of the characterization and a calculation of single score results were followed by LIME2, and 15 impact categories were investigated. Results and discussionThe packaging scenario had lower environmental impacts than the nonpackaging scenario, and the climate change (CC), resource consumption (RC), and urban air pollution (UAP) impacts in the packaging scenario were reduced by up to 94.1% compared with those in the nonpackaging scenario. Packaging decreased food losses related to injury during transportation; in turn, it also mitigated the environmental burden of additional peach cultivation to compensate for food losses. The results of the hot spot analysis indicated that cultivation, package production, peach waste (due to food loss), and transportation from a fruit sorting facility to the wholesale market stage largely formed the life cycle, with the cultivation stage accounting for the largest portion of the cycle (contribution ratios 36.4 to 89.4%). ConclusionThis study shows that packaging can potentially reduce the environmental impacts of peach production; notably, using packaging for peaches effectively decreases the environmental burden of the peach life cycle. This finding suggests that considering the trade-offs between food loss and the environmental burden associated with the peach life cycle is important for achieving a sustainable postharvest process for peaches from an environmental perspective.

Introduction to the special issue “Sustainability Issues of Food Processing and Packaging: the Role of Life Cycle Assessment”

“…From the table, it is understood that those two studies investigated the supply chain of different-category foods: sweets (Bianchi et al 2020) and fruits (Sasaki et al 2021). Both studies applied-and, in line with previous five published in this SI, remarked the scientific validity and usefulness of-LCA, with the difference that, similarly to Del , Bianchi et al (2020) followed also the specialised PCRs besides the ISO (2006a, b).…”

“…In their contributions, the authors explored relevant sustainability issues of food SCs, thereby enhancing the current state-of-the-art in the field. Most of them focussed upon packaging materials and technologies, as done by David et al (2020), Del , Gallucci et al (2020), Stefanini et al (2020), and Yang and Rosentrater (2020), whilst Bianchi et al (2020) and Sasaki et al (2021) investigated the entire SC of foods with particular attention on the packaging factors that influence their environmental profiles.…”

“…Another sector in which packaging plays multiple key roles is that of the fruits and vegetables (F&V) as it can contribute to preserving the generation of food losses during transportation due to vibration and shock-derived damage. The manufacturing of advanced packaging systems to better protect F&V and reduce those losses may end up worsening the environmental profile associated with the F&V life cycle due to the use of additional, often more sophisticated materials and of additional energy (Sasaki et al 2021). Such a relevant research field was interestingly investigated by Sasaki et al (2021) who focussed upon fresh peaches and carried a full LCA to evaluate both the positive and the negative influences that packaging plays upon their life cycle.…”

“…In addition to this, the authors accounted for a set of distances in the range 0-2000 km for transporting the peaches from the cultivation farm to a fruit sorting facility, then to the wholesale market and, after that, to the retailer. Peach cultivation was considered by the authors because, though the number of transported peaches is the same in both packaging scenarios (15), the overall weight of the implied peaches was determined by Sasaki et al (2021) to be 1-1.21 kg for the protective package, and 2.50-10 kg for the non-protective package. This is because additional peaches are required to compensate the losses due to vibration and shocking during transportation: this occurs much more when they are transported unprotected.…”

“…Finally, similarly to Del and Gallucci et al (2020), Bianchi et al (2020) followed a midpoint approach and used the CML methods as established by the PCRs they applied; by contrast, as done by Yan and Rosentrater (2020), Sasaki et al (2021) expanded the assessment to the endpoint approach, using the LIME method.…”