Alsaleh Alla, Aleisa Esra
Industrial and Management Systems Engineering Department, Kuwait University, 13060 Safat, Kuwait.
Waste Biomass Valorization. 2023;14(4):1169-1195. doi: 10.1007/s12649-022-01914-7. Epub 2022 Sep 5.
This study applies a triple bottom line (TBL) framework that incorporates the environmental, economic, and social impacts of producing animal feed from food waste (FW) collected at the post-consumption stage of the food supply chain. The environmental bottom line (BL) is conducted using life cycle assessment (LCA), the economic BL is calculated using the net present value (NPV), while the social BL is assessed using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. The results within the environmental BL indicate that at a 13.8% recovery rate, animal feed produced from a ton of FW saves 0.33 m equivalent of crop land but requires 3.5 tons of water compared to 0.9 tons and 0.78 tons for landfilling and incineration for FW treatment respectively. In addition, the production of animal feed from one ton of FW emits 1064.6 kg CO-eq, compared to 823.6 kg CO-eq using landfilling and 781.9 kg CO-eq when incinerated. The economic BL indicates a profit of $3.65/ton from incinerating FW, compared to cost of $93.8 and $137.6 per ton for animal feed production and landfilling of FW respectively. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is applied to integrate the TBL scores and rank the scenarios accordingly. AHP recommends animal feed and incineration over landfilling by a fourfold higher score. A simulation using an augmented simplex lattice mixture (ASLM) design recommends incineration with energy recovery over animal feed production from FW collected at the consumer stage. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the production of animal feed from FW is environmentally feasible if the safe recovery rate exceeds 48%, is which possible for FW collected at early stages of the food supply chain.
本研究应用了三重底线（TBL）框架，该框架纳入了在食品供应链消费后阶段收集的食物垃圾（FW）生产动物饲料所产生的环境、经济和社会影响。环境底线（BL）采用生命周期评估（LCA）进行评估，经济底线通过净现值（NPV）计算，而社会底线则使用优势、劣势、机会和威胁（SWOT）分析进行评估。环境底线的结果表明，在回收率为13.8%的情况下，一吨食物垃圾生产的动物饲料节省了0.33平方米当量的耕地，但需要3.5吨水，而食物垃圾处理采用填埋和焚烧分别需要0.9吨和0.78吨水。此外，一吨食物垃圾生产动物饲料排放1064.6千克二氧化碳当量，而填埋为823.6千克二氧化碳当量，焚烧为781.9千克二氧化碳当量。经济底线表明，焚烧食物垃圾每吨可获利3.65美元，而动物饲料生产和食物垃圾填埋的成本分别为每吨93.8美元和137.6美元。应用层次分析法（AHP）整合TBL得分并据此对各情景进行排名。层次分析法建议动物饲料和焚烧优于填埋，得分高出四倍。使用增强单纯形格子混合（ASLM）设计进行的模拟建议，对于在消费阶段收集的食物垃圾，采用能量回收的焚烧方式优于生产动物饲料。敏感性分析表明，如果安全回收率超过48%，从食物垃圾生产动物饲料在环境上是可行的，这对于在食品供应链早期阶段收集的食物垃圾来说是有可能的。
