4.8 Article

Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food Waste Management Strategies in the United States

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 16, Pages 8444-8452

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00893

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Covanta Energy
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-1034059]
  3. Environmental Research and Education Foundation
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1437498] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New regulations and targets limiting the disposal of food waste have been recently enacted in numerous jurisdictions. This analysis evaluated selected environmental implications of food waste management policies using life-cycle assessment. Scenarios were developed to evaluate management alternatives applicable to the waste discarded at facilities where food waste is a large component of the waste (e.g., restaurants, grocery stores, and food processors). Options considered include anaerobic digestion (AD), aerobic composting, waste-to-energy combustion (WTE), and landfilling, and multiple performance levels were considered for each option. The global warming impact ranged from approximately -350 to -45 kg CO(2)e Mg-1 of waste for scenarios using AD, -190 to 62 kg CO(2)e Mg-1 for those using composting, -350 to -28 kg CO(2)e Mg-1 when all waste was managed by WTE, and -260 to 260 kg CO(2)e Mg-1 when all waste was landfilled. Landfill diversion was found to reduce emissions, and diverting food waste from WTE generally increased emissions. The analysis further found that when a 20 year GWP was used instead of a 100 year GWP, every scenario including WTE was preferable to every scenario including landfill. Jurisdictions seeking to enact food waste disposal regulations should consider regional factors and material properties before duplicating existing statutes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available