Pilot scale thermal and alternative pasteurization of tomato and watermelon juice: An energy comparison and life cycle assessment

被引:74
作者
Aganovic, Kemal [1 ]
Smetana, Sergiy [1 ]
Grauwet, Tara [2 ]
Toepfl, Stefan [1 ]
Mathys, Alexander [3 ]
Van Loey, Ann [2 ]
Heinz, Volker [1 ]
机构
[1] German Inst Food Technol DIL eV, Prof von Klitzing Str 7, D-49610 Quakenbruck, Germany
[2] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Lab Food Technol, Leuven Food Sci & Nutr Res Ctr LFoRCe, Dept Microbial & Mol Syst M2S, Kasteelpk Arenberg 22 Box 2457, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
[3] ETH, Lab Sustainable Food Proc, Inst Food Nutr & Hlth, Schmelzbergstr 9, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
Tomato; Watermelon; HPP; PEF; LCA; Pasteurization; PULSED ELECTRIC-FIELDS; FOOD-PRODUCTS; TECHNOLOGIES; IMPACT; LCA; PRESERVATION; PRESSURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.015
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The energy balance and life cycle assessment (LCA) of conventional (thermal) and alternative (pulsed electric fields (PEF) and high pressure processing (HPP)) technologies for preservation of tomato and watermelon juice have been evaluated. A comparison between technologies was performed at an equivalent level of microbial inactivation whilst considering the same production capacity on a pilot scale using industrial scale equipment. The data included in the study, such as selected processing conditions, energy consumption, water use, cleaning agents and maintenance, were experimentally collected. For the LCA two main systems were identified: (1) the first system reviewed only the processing stage of juice production (from "gate to gate"), and (2) the second included the expansion of the boundaries to the agricultural production stage and waste treatment during juice preparation and processing (from "farm to gate"). Comparable energy uptake was observed when the same technology for two different juices was compared. In terms of energy consumption, the highest specific energy uptake was recorded for HPP, resulting in an energy consumption of 0.20 kWh/l of juice. Slightly less energy was required by PEF processing with 0.12 kWh/l, followed by thermal with 0.04 kWh/l of juice. As to the environmental impact, expected differences were observed between the technologies based on the differences in energy consumption. Even though the differences of processing stage were assigned to the use of energy, the largest environmental impact was associated with the 250 ml PET bottles production (similar to 85%). Considerable differences were outlined between the two juices for the "farm to gate" analysis, where tomato juice had a higher impact compared to watermelon juice. From the sensitivity analysis, different strategies for diminishing the impact were identified. They are associated with raw material production (field tomatoes), waste amount decreasing (type of watermelons selection) and relevant packaging selection (HDPE vs. PET). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:514 / 525
页数:12
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
Aganovic K., 2015, EUR FOOD RES TECHNOL, V242, P1
[2]   Impact of different large scale pasteurisation technologies and refrigerated storage on the headspace fingerprint of tomato juice [J].
Aganovic, Kemal ;
Grauwet, Tara ;
Kebede, Biniam T. ;
Toepfl, Stefan ;
Heinz, Volker ;
Hendrickx, Marc ;
Van Loey, Ann .
INNOVATIVE FOOD SCIENCE & EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2014, 26 :431-444
[3]   The utility of Life Cycle Assessment in the ready meal food industry [J].
Alberto Calderon, Luis ;
Iglesias, Loreto ;
Laca, Adriana ;
Herrero, Monica ;
Diaz, Mario .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2010, 54 (12) :1196-1207
[4]  
Andersson K., 1998, J CLEAN PROD, V6, P277, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00027-4
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2001, VROM ZOETERMEER
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2006, ISO 14040 2006 ENV M
[7]  
Augusto P. E. D., 2014, ENCY FOOD MICROBIOLO, P567, DOI [10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00405-5, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00405-5]
[8]  
Baumann H., 2004, HITCHHIKERS GUIDE LC, V1st
[9]  
Dalsgaard H., 2003, Environmentally-friendly food processing, P116, DOI 10.1533/9781855737174.2.116
[10]  
Davies J, 2010, WOODHEAD PUBL FOOD S, P103, DOI 10.1533/9780857090713.1.103