从电子能量核算的角度评估食品回收等级概念:验证和理论见解

IF 7.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Waste management Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2024.09.015
Federico Sulis, Feni Agostinho, Cecília M.V.B. Almeida, Biagio F. Giannetti
{"title":"从电子能量核算的角度评估食品回收等级概念:验证和理论见解","authors":"Federico Sulis,&nbsp;Feni Agostinho,&nbsp;Cecília M.V.B. Almeida,&nbsp;Biagio F. Giannetti","doi":"10.1016/j.wasman.2024.09.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The food recovery hierarchy (FRH) is an important concept widely used worldwide as a guideline for food waste management policies. It consists of different options for food waste management hierarchically organized, in which source reduction is the most preferable option, followed by food donation, feeding animals, industrial use, composting, energy recovery, and landfilling. The most common approaches used in the literature to validate the FRH concept consider both, a user-side and donor-side perspectives. While the former are typical of methods such as life cycle assessment and ecological footprint that are extensively explored in the literature, the latter is typical of methods such as eMergy accounting (EMA), a perspective that remains unexplored. This study aims to overcome that literature gap by discussing: (i) The validity of FRH concept under an EMA perspective; (ii) The differences on saving natural resources depending on the adopted FRH option; (iii) Obtaining a mathematical model representing the saved emergy as a function of invested emergy. Results show that the FRH is confirmed under the EMA lens as expressed by the proposed emergy return index (ERI). The most preferable options within FRH are by far more efficient in saving emergy than the least preferable options (about 250 times better). The obtained model EMS=2.44E+22/EMI <sup>0.51</sup> describes the relation between the invested and saved emergy along the FRH hierarchy. Insights are presented to promote discussions on existing ERIs cluster within the FRH.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23969,"journal":{"name":"Waste management","volume":"190 ","pages":"Pages 131-140"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the food recovery hierarchy concept from an eMergy accounting perspective: Validation and theoretical insights\",\"authors\":\"Federico Sulis,&nbsp;Feni Agostinho,&nbsp;Cecília M.V.B. Almeida,&nbsp;Biagio F. Giannetti\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wasman.2024.09.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The food recovery hierarchy (FRH) is an important concept widely used worldwide as a guideline for food waste management policies. It consists of different options for food waste management hierarchically organized, in which source reduction is the most preferable option, followed by food donation, feeding animals, industrial use, composting, energy recovery, and landfilling. The most common approaches used in the literature to validate the FRH concept consider both, a user-side and donor-side perspectives. While the former are typical of methods such as life cycle assessment and ecological footprint that are extensively explored in the literature, the latter is typical of methods such as eMergy accounting (EMA), a perspective that remains unexplored. This study aims to overcome that literature gap by discussing: (i) The validity of FRH concept under an EMA perspective; (ii) The differences on saving natural resources depending on the adopted FRH option; (iii) Obtaining a mathematical model representing the saved emergy as a function of invested emergy. Results show that the FRH is confirmed under the EMA lens as expressed by the proposed emergy return index (ERI). The most preferable options within FRH are by far more efficient in saving emergy than the least preferable options (about 250 times better). The obtained model EMS=2.44E+22/EMI <sup>0.51</sup> describes the relation between the invested and saved emergy along the FRH hierarchy. Insights are presented to promote discussions on existing ERIs cluster within the FRH.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Waste management\",\"volume\":\"190 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 131-140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Waste management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X24005026\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Waste management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X24005026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

食物回收等级制度(FRH)是全世界广泛使用的一个重要概念,是食物废物管理政策的指导原则。它由不同的厨余管理方案组成,按等级排列,源头减量是最可取的方案,其次是食物捐赠、喂养动物、工业利用、堆肥、能源回收和填埋。文献中用于验证 FRH 概念的最常见方法同时考虑了用户方和捐赠方的观点。前者是典型的生命周期评估和生态足迹等方法,在文献中得到了广泛的探讨,而后者则是典型的电子能量核算(EMA)等方法,是一种尚未被探讨的视角。本研究旨在通过讨论:(i) EMA 视角下 FRH 概念的有效性;(ii) 采用 FRH 方案在节约自然资源方面的差异;(iii) 获得一个数学模型,将节约的应急能量表示为投资应急能量的函数,从而克服文献空白。结果表明,在 EMA 的视角下,FRH 得到了证实,这体现在所提出的应急能源回报指数(ERI)上。在 FRH 中,最可取的方案在节约应急能源方面的效率远远高于最不可取的方案(约 250 倍)。所得模型 EMS=2.44E+22/EMI 0.51 描述了在 FRH 层次结构中投资和节约的应急能源之间的关系。所提出的见解可促进对 FRH 中现有 ERIs 群组的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing the food recovery hierarchy concept from an eMergy accounting perspective: Validation and theoretical insights
The food recovery hierarchy (FRH) is an important concept widely used worldwide as a guideline for food waste management policies. It consists of different options for food waste management hierarchically organized, in which source reduction is the most preferable option, followed by food donation, feeding animals, industrial use, composting, energy recovery, and landfilling. The most common approaches used in the literature to validate the FRH concept consider both, a user-side and donor-side perspectives. While the former are typical of methods such as life cycle assessment and ecological footprint that are extensively explored in the literature, the latter is typical of methods such as eMergy accounting (EMA), a perspective that remains unexplored. This study aims to overcome that literature gap by discussing: (i) The validity of FRH concept under an EMA perspective; (ii) The differences on saving natural resources depending on the adopted FRH option; (iii) Obtaining a mathematical model representing the saved emergy as a function of invested emergy. Results show that the FRH is confirmed under the EMA lens as expressed by the proposed emergy return index (ERI). The most preferable options within FRH are by far more efficient in saving emergy than the least preferable options (about 250 times better). The obtained model EMS=2.44E+22/EMI 0.51 describes the relation between the invested and saved emergy along the FRH hierarchy. Insights are presented to promote discussions on existing ERIs cluster within the FRH.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Waste management
Waste management 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
492
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Waste Management is devoted to the presentation and discussion of information on solid wastes,it covers the entire lifecycle of solid. wastes. Scope: Addresses solid wastes in both industrialized and economically developing countries Covers various types of solid wastes, including: Municipal (e.g., residential, institutional, commercial, light industrial) Agricultural Special (e.g., C and D, healthcare, household hazardous wastes, sewage sludge)
期刊最新文献
Assessing the resource potential of paper and board in lightweight packaging waste sorting plants through manual analysis and sensor-based material flow monitoring. Path-dependencies in the transition to sustainable biowaste valorization: Lessons from a socio-technical analysis of Sweden and Greece Polyvinylidene fluoride binder removal through subcritical methanol for efficient liberation of cathode materials from lithium-ion batteries Unlocking the potential of vinegar residue: A novel biorefining strategy for amino acid-enriched xylooligosaccharides and humic-like acid Valorisation of anaerobic digestate to nutrients and humic substances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1