21 Journal homepage: www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania Volume XVI, Issue 1- 2017, pag. 21 - 28 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FOOD WASTE: A CASE STUDY APPLE FRUITS *Cristina GHINEA1 1Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania cristina.ghinea@fia.usv.ro *Corresponding author Received February 5th 2017, accepted March 27th 2017 Abstract. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the environmental impacts (EI) of the apple supply chain from the NE region, Romania and to calculate the EI from apple waste landfilling. The evaluation was performed by applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. In the first phase the apple supply chain was investigated and the environmental impacts were calculated and interpreted, while in the second phase the evaluation of apple waste landfilling was performed. The results showed that the apple production phase has the highest contribution to all the impact categories studied (acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) etc.). Transportation and storage stages contribute mainly to POCP and GWP, while landfilling contributes especially to AP, GWP and POCP. Keywords: apple, environment, food waste, landfilling, life cycle assessment 1. Introduction The management of food loss and waste is a critical aspect for sustainable development and represents a sensitive issue at global level [1]. Food waste composition includes waste consisting of parts or entire products such as meat, dairy, cereal, vegetables, fruits and others (Fig. 1). These are the main products from consumer basket which can be wasted during different life cycle stage of these products. Apples represent 3% of the overall consumer basket in the EU which also includes dairy products (25%), meat (14%), cereal (7%), crop-based products (7%), vegetables (13%), beverages (32%), pre-prepared meals (0.5%) etc. [2]. The food can be loss (which is equal with food wastage) avoidable and unavoidable (such as seeds) during the primary production stage (edible products left in the field and others), transport and storage (for example product damaged by machineries, storage at a wrong temperature etc.), processing (food damaged by inappropriate packaging), distribution (expired food, unsold food, rejected food after quality controls etc.) and consumption (unavoidable loss, food not eaten or others) [2, 3]. The food waste hierarchy was developed in order to prioritize efforts to reduce food waste (from the last favorable to the most favorable option) (Fig. 2) [4, 5]. The environmental impacts of food waste disposal were evaluated and discussed in various studies, for example: -Notarnicola et al. [2] investigated the environmental impacts of the most representative food types consumed in the EU-27 in 2010 and showed that food is http://www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal mailto:cristina.ghinea@fia.usv.ro Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 22 wasted in both the agricultural/industrial and domestic phases; Fig. 1. Solid waste fractions Fig. 2. Food wastage hierarchy - Corrado et al. [3] provided a preliminary analysis of food loss by LCA modeling, and suggested a definition for food loss, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches for food loss in the supply chain and provided some recommendations for LCA practitioners; - Salemdeeb et al. [5] studied food waste utilization for animal feed and compared the environmental and health impacts of different technologies such as composting, anaerobic digestion, dry pig feed and wet pig feed. In this study the production, consumption and loss of apple fruits were investigated and evaluated from the environmental point of view. The method chosen for elimination of apple waste was landfilling. 2. Production, consumption and waste of apples Apple tree is one of the most common fruit tree cultivated in Europe and covers 450000 ha. The area cultivated with apple in Romania represents 11% of the total production area of the EU [6, 7]. Total area planted with apple trees in 2012 in Romania was 51225.7 ha from which 6149.9 ha in NE region [8]. The apple production in EU is ranked differently from the area covered by apple trees: Poland harvested a quarter of the EU's apple production, followed by Italy (19.2 %), France (15.5 %), Germany (7.7 %) and Romania only 3.6 % [7]. The areas cultivated in Romania with apple orchards and apple productions in 2012 in NE region are illustrated in Fig. 3. Fruit cultivation has a long tradition in Romania and holds an important place in agriculture. The main species of fruit trees cultivated are: apple, pear, apricot, peach and nectarine. In our country about 100 varieties of apple grow, the most important ones being: Jonathan and Golden delicious (69.5%) followed by Starkrimson, Idared, Florina, Parmen gold, etc. [8]. Apple Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 23 consumption values per capita in EU in 2015 were: Austria (53 kg), Slovenia (36 kg), Netherlands (34 kg), Hungary (31 kg), Luxembourg (26 kg), Croatia (25 kg), Portugal (24 kg) and Romania (23.5 kg) [9]. Fig. 4 illustrates the average annual consumption per capita in Romania for fruits and apples [10]. Fig. 3. Areas cultivated in Romania with apple orchards and apple production in 2012 in NE region Fig. 4. Average annual consumption per capita Fruits along with vegetables are recommended in daily consumption (400- 800 g/day), in Europe average fruits consumption accounts for 166 g/day, but the consumption varies from a region to another [9]. According to [11] one medium apple with skin (192 g) provides 95 kcal, 19 g total sugars, 4 g dietary fiber and 195 mg K. [12] investigated various type of apples cultivated in Romania and established the following contents for Jonathan apple: 14.29% dry matter total content, 85.71 % water content, 9.84% sugar, 7.66% vitamin C/ 100 g fruit and ash content 2.38%. Apple loss and waste through the supply chain can be: field loss (5-25%), grading loss (5-25%), storage loss (3-4%), packing loss (3-8%) and retail waste (2-3%) [13]. 3. Life cycle assessment 3.1. Methodology, system boundaries, functional unit Life cycle assessment which is a standardized methodology was selected and applied to calculate and interpret the environmental impacts generated by apple fruit production, transport, processing, consumption and waste disposal. The modeling was performed with GaBi software which is an instrument that includes LCA methodology and allows environmental impacts calculation of complex process [14, 15]. The system boundaries considered in this evaluation are illustrated in Fig. 5. The functional units considered are the amount of apple produced in 2012 in the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 kg 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Av e rage annual consumption pe r capita Fruits Apples Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 24 NE region of Romania (for the supply chain, in the first part of the study) and the quantity of food waste resulted from distribution and consumption stages (for landfilling). Fig. 5. System boundaries 3.2. Inventory analysis In the inventory analysis phase the inputs and outputs for each stage included in the supply chain were established and calculated. The amount of apple produced in 2012 was of 84400 t. The apple losses considered are: the field loss 6%, transport loss 3%, processing loss 13% and consumption loss 6%. In 2012, 60876 t of apple were consumed in the NE region of Romania. Quantities of organic and mineral fertilizers were calculated based on the literature data. [2] considered the following amounts of fertilizers used in apple production: N 62 kg/ha, P2O5 4 kg/ha, K2O 47 kg/ha, lime fertilizer 52 kg/ha. Emissions to air can be N2O (direct and indirect emissions from N fertilizers) 1 kg/ha, NH3 from N fertilizers 7.5 kg/ha, CO2 from fertilizers 43.3 kg/ha, while emissions to water NO3 from N fertilizers 82.4 kg/ha, P from fertilizers 0.1 kg/ha and emissions to soil: pesticides (Chlorpyrifos 0.35 kg/ha, Glyphosate 0.28 kg/ha, Mancozeb 1.5 kg/ha, Mineral oil 1.6 kg/ha Sulfur 1.68 kg/ha) according to [2]. The total amount of diesel consumed for the production phase was calculated knowing the quantities of diesel used for plowing (4.3 L/ha), spraying herbicides Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 25 (1.6 L/ha), phytosanitary treatments (38.4 L/ha), orchard maintenance (70.8 L/ha), technological transport (44 L/ha) etc. [16]. Emissions in air (CO2, CO, NOx, N2O, PM10, CH4, SO2 and hydrocarbons) from fuel consumption were calculated based on the emission resulted from burning 1 kg of diesel. The electricity consumed for apple sorting considered was 0.5 kWh/t [17]. Also, cardboard packaging and plastic films amounts were calculated. 3.3. Life cycle impact assessment, results and discussion All the data obtained in the inventory step were introduced in GaBi software, where the potential environmental impacts are calculated based on plan, process and the inputs and outputs related to the system. Impact categories like acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) can be analyzed and calculated with GaBi tool [14]. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ammonia (NH3) contribute to acidification. In LCA the acidification potential (AP) is given in kg sulphur dioxide equivalents (SO2- equivalents). Emissions of NOx, NH3, P and N contribute to eutrophication potential which is expressed in kg 34PO equivalents in LCA. The substances which may contribute to the GWP are: CO2, CO, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc. In LCA the GWP is expressed in kg CO2 equivalents. Human toxicity potential is related with VOC, particles, heavy metals, POPs, NOx, SO2 emissions and can be expressed in kg DCB - equivalents. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) are degraded in reactions with nitrogen oxides (NOx) initiated by sunlight in the lower atmosphere which leads to photochemical ozone formation (POCP) expressed in LCA as kg C2H5- equivalents [18, 19]. After evaluation, the results were obtained by several impact assessment methods. This paper presents and focus on the results obtained with CML 2001-Jan. 2016, ReCiPe 1.08 and UBP (ecological scarcity) methods. The values obtained for each category of impact in different measurement units were normalized in order to compare and illustrate on a single graphic the environmental impact categories. Fig. 6 show the normalized values (in PE = person equivalents) obtained for the following impact categories AP, EP, GWP, HTP and POCP. It can be observed that all the impact categories have positive values which mean negative impacts on the environment. AP has the highest value followed by POCP, EP and HTP, the lowest value being recorded for GWP. Acidifying substances such as SO2 and NOx which contribute to the acidification potential come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels [20]. In this study the emission of substances which contribute to AP are due to diesel burning used for plowing, treatments, transport and distribution etc. Emissions with a slower contribution to AP come from N fertilizers application. Fig. 6. Environmental impacts of apple fruit supply chain 0.00E+00 2.00E+08 4.00E+08 6.00E+08 8.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.20E+09 1.40E+09 1.60E+09 1.80E+09 2.00E+09 PE AP EP GWP HTP POCP impa ct categories CML 2001- Jan.2016 Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 26 Fig. 7 presents the contribution of production, distribution, transport and storage phases and also diesel and electricity consumption to the AP, EP, GWP, HTP and POCP. It can be observed that apple production phase has the highest contribution to the all impact categories (almost 90 % for AP and EP; 42% for HTP). Fig. 7. Contribution to the environmental impacts of the production, distribution, transport and storage phases and diesel, electricity consumption Diesel influence mainly the values of HTP (50%), POCP (21%) and in a lower degree GWP, AP and EP. Emission from transportation and storage contribute mainly to POCP (16.5%) and GWP (13.2%), having a lower contribution to the other impact categories. Fig. 8 shows the normalized values obtained for climate change impact category with ReCiPe method, based on three cultural perspectives: egalitarian (E), hierarchist (H), individualist (I). Egalitarian principle considers long term aspects based on precautionary principle thinking, individualist principle is based on short term and is characterized by optimism aspects that technology can avoid many problems in future while hierarchist is based on consensus model often considered the default model [21]. From Fig. 8 it can be observed that all the values for climate change impact categories are positive which means negative impacts on the environment. The highest values are registered for climate change impact on human health. Also, Fig. 8 shows that the hierarchist perspective provides middle values compared with the other two perspectives. Fig. 9 presents the contribution of phases from apple supply chain to the environmental impacts according to UBP ecological scarcity method. Production and diesel contributes to water pollution, while the amount of pesticides that enter the soil is influenced entirely by the production phase. The main air pollutants come from production, transport and storage phases. Production phase contributes to the global warming in proportion of 75%, followed by transport and storage (13%). Landfilling of apple waste amounts resulted mainly from distribution and consumption was also evaluated. The amount of leachate and biogas which may result from this type of food waste were calculated, also the emission in air, water and soil were estimated. After the calculation of environmental impacts was observed that the emissions from landfilling contribute mainly to AP, GWP and POCP (Fig. 10). Fig. 8. Impact on climate change of apple fruit supply chain (CchE- Climate change Ecosystems; CcHh- Climate change Human Health) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% AP EP GW P HTP POCP Production Diesel Electricity Distribution Transport and storage 0.00E+00 5.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.50E+03 2.00E+03 2.50E+03 PE E H I ReCiPe, Endpoint CchE CcHh Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 27 Fig. 9. Contribution of phases from apple supply chain to the environmental impacts according to UBP Ecological scarcity method Fig. 10. Environmental impacts of food waste landfilling 4. Conclusions In this paper the environmental impacts of apple supply chain were investigated. Life cycle assessment methodology was applied for environmental impacts calculation. The results obtained showed that the production phase has the highest impacts on the environment followed by transport and storage phases. Substance emission during the apple supply chain contributes mainly to acidification potential. The amounts of apple loss during the chain were also calculated. Landfilling was considered the elimination method for apple waste. In the next study different scenarios for apple loss/waste treatment will be developed (considering that this type of waste can be used to feed animals, can be composted or disposed in landfills) and evaluated and compared from the environmental point of view. 5. Acknowledgments This paper was performed with the support of GaBi Education Life Cycle Assessment Software. 6. References [1]. GHINEA C., GAVRILESCU M., Impact of food waste on climate change, Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University – Suceava, XIV, (4): 340 – 344, (2015). [2]. NOTARNICOLA B., TASSIELLI G., RENZULLI P.A., CASTELLANI V., SALA S., Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140: 753- 765, (2017). [3]. CORRADO S., ARDENTE F., SALA S., SAOUTER E., Modelling of food loss within life cycle assessment: From current practice towards a systematisation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140: 847-859, (2017). [4]. Papargyropoulou E., Lozano R., Steinberger K., Wright J., Ujang N., Bin Z., The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste, Journal of Cleaner Production, 76: 106-115, (2014). [5]. SALEMDEEB R., zu ERMGASSEN E.K.H.J., KIM M.H., BALMFORD A., AL- TABBAA A., Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140: 871-880, (2017). [6]. BADIU D., ARION F.H., MURESAN I.C., LILE R., MITRE V., Evaluation of Economic Efficiency of Apple Orchard Investments, Sustainability, 7: 10521-1053, (2015). [7]. EUROSTAT, Fruit and vegetable sector in the EU – a statistical overview, (2016), On line at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/The_fruit_and_vegetable_sect or_in_the_EU_-_a_statistical_overview. [8]. INS, Production potential of the orchards and vineyards for the production of table grapes in 2012, Press Release, Nr. 233 of September 30, 2013, National Institute of Statistics, (2013). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Global warming Main air pollutants Pesticides into soil Water pollutants UBP, 2013 Production Diesel Electricity Distribution Transport and storage 3.60E-07 3.80E-07 4.00E-07 4.20E-07 4.40E-07 4.60E-07 4.80E-07 5.00E-07 PE AP GWP POCP Impact categories CML 2001- Jan. 2016 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Volume XVI, Issue 1 – 2017, pag. 21 – 28 28 [9]. POPESCU A., Some considerations on the dynamics of fruit and apple production and consumption in Romania in the period 2007-2014, Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 16: 267-276, (2016). [10]. INS, Consumption per capita in Romania for fruits and apples, National Institute of Statistics (2017). [11]. O’NEIL C.E., NICKLAS T.A., FULGONI V.L., Consumption of apples is associated with a better diet quality and reduced risk of obesity in children: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2010, Nutrition Journal, 14:48, (2015). [12]. CAMPEANU G., NEATA G., DARJANSCHI G., Chemical Composition of the Fruits of Several Apple Cultivars Growth as Biological Crop, Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj, 37: 161-16, (2009). [13]. WRAP, Fruit and vegetable resource maps. Mapping fruit and vegetable waste through the retail and wholesale supply chain, (2011). [14]. GHINEA C., PETRARU M., BRESSERS H.TH. A., GAVRILESCU M., Environmental Evaluation of Waste Management Scenarios – Significance of the Boundaries, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20(1): 76-85, (2012). [15]. PE INTERNATIONAL, Handbook for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Using the GaBi Education Software Package, Germany, (2009). [16]. CDEP, Specific consumption of diesel for mechanical works, (2006), On line at: www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2006/600/20/6/ax2.pdf. [17]. INMA, Technology for mechanization and technical equipment for conditioning and calibration apples fruit for semi-subsistence farms, National institute of research and development for machines and installations for agriculture and food industry, (2014). [18]. GHINEA C., GAVRILESCU M., Decision support models for solid waste management – an overview, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 9: 869-880, (2010). [19]. GHINEA C., Waste management models and their application to sustainable management of recyclable waste, PhD Thesis, Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania, (2012) [20]. EEA, Europe's Environment - The Dobris Assessment, Chapter 31, European Environment Agency, (1995). [21]. ReCiPe Mid/Endpoint method, version 1.08 December (2012). http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2006/600/20/6/ax2.pdf.