4.0 Article

A comparative life cycle assessment of cross-processing herring side streams with fruit pomace or seaweed into a stable food protein ingredient

期刊

FUTURE FOODS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100194

关键词

By-products; Valorization; Up-scaling; LCA; pH-shift

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used life cycle assessment (LCA) to analyze the feasibility and potential environmental impacts of recovering valuable compounds from food industry's side streams to extract stable antioxidative protein ingredients. The results showed that delaying the addition of helpers can significantly reduce the environmental impacts of the product.
One approach to improve the sustainability of food processing is the recovery of valuable compounds from food industry's side streams. In this study a life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify the potential environmen-tal impacts of cross-processing herring side streams with different antioxidant-rich biomasses, so-called helpers, for the extraction of a protein ingredient that is stable against lipid oxidation. New primary experimental data was combined with literature values to model cross-processing of herring with different helpers, namely, lingonberry pomace, apple pomace, and brown and green seaweed. Different addition ratios and delayed addition of the po-mace were also assessed for cross-processing herring with lingonberry pomace. The environmental performance of the resulting protein ingredients were assessed on a mass and delivered protein basis. Potential environmental impacts for climate change, energy consumption, land occupation, and depletion of marine resources were ad-dressed. No ingredient performed better in all environmental impact categories, but delaying the helper addition had the most significant influence in reducing the product's environmental impacts. This study's outcomes enable analysts to direct research towards the most relevant parameters for producing a protein ingredient with lower environmental impact.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据