4.6 Article

Food Waste Treatments and the Impact of Composting on Carbon Footprint in Canada

Journal

FERMENTATION-BASEL
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fermentation8100566

Keywords

food waste; carbon footprint; waste treatment; composting; anaerobic digestion (AD); greenhouse gases (GHG); municipal solid waste (MSW)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Forty percent of food generated in Canada is wasted, leading to significant environmental issues. Composting has been found to be an effective solution to reduce carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
Forty percent of the food generated in Canada is wasted, making it the most significant component of municipal solid waste. Food waste characteristics, such as high moisture and oil content, and variable composition, make it difficult to manage with conventional waste treatment methods. Part of food waste is disposed of in landfills, generating greenhouse gases and significantly increasing the carbon footprint. Various treatment methods such as composting and anaerobic digestion have been employed to treat and manage the remaining waste efficiently. This study provides an overview of the impact of composting as a food waste treatment method in Canada and paves way for the research of the usefulness of composting in addition to other food waste treatment methods such as anaerobic digestion. Average composting data for Canada was used to determine the change in the carbon footprint by the diversion of food waste using CCaLC2 software. It was determined that the overall carbon footprint of 1.38 and 1.33 mega-tons of CO2 was reduced from the composting of food waste in the years 2014 and 2016, which were approximately 18% and 20% of the total footprint of Canada municipal solid waste, respectively. The carbon footprint data collected herein were compared to the data from England, Sweden, and the USA to reveal the high effectiveness of composting in Canada.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available