Search

DLCA has been applied to several food waste streams, however, to date no critical assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) is available in the scientific literature. Accordingly, the present review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on DLCA and its application to Household and Commercial Food Waste (HCFW) by providing critical assessment and perspectives for future research. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework for literature review was employed, with just 12 relevant studies identified between 1999 and 2022, highlighting a dearth of research on DLCA of food waste and the need for further research. Identified studies exhibit significant variations with respect to DLCA methodology, boundary settings, and data quality and reporting, with more attention typically given to combining conventional LCA with dynamic characterization models, thus making it difficult to draw conclusive findings or identify consistent trends. Additionally, most identified studies employed DLCA for a specific case study and comparison with traditional LCA outcomes was typically ignored; just one study presented the projected impact from both LCA and DLCA for the entire life cycle of a product. Employed functional/reference units ranged from specific quantities such as 1 kg of refined crystals or syrup, 1 g L -1 Sophorolipid solution, and 1 kg of dry food with packaging material, to broader indicators like 1 kg of biofuel or 1 MJ of primary energy. Monte Carlo simulation was the most frequently employed method for uncertainty analyses within identified studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in just 4 studies, but it was not always clearly reported. While DLCA is undoubtedly a more realistic approach to impact assessment, and thus likely more accurate, a need exists for increasingly standardized and regulated versions of DLCA for global and multi-criteria practices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Majid Bahramian reports financial support was provided by Technological University Dublin., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The present analysis was conducted as the first research to assess the techno-economic viability of the value-added by-products (struvite, blood meal, bone meal, and raw sheepskin) from a medium-scale sheep slaughterhouse facility with a slaughtering capacity of 300 sheep per day. For this aim, a comparative technical and economic feasibility analysis was performed to assess the synergistic use of slaughterhouse-oriented rendering wastes and struvite recovery from real sheep abattoir effluent within the framework of detailed cost breakdown, break-even point, and payback period analyses. The experimental findings clearly showed that under the optimal conditions (chemical combination of MgCl 2 .6H 2 O + NaH 2 PO 4 .2H 2 O, a molar ratio of Mg 2+ :NH 4 + -N:PO 4 3- -P = 1.2:1:1, a reaction pH of 9.0, an initial ammonium concentration of 240 mg NH 4 + -N/L, and a reaction time of 15 min), struvite precipitation could effectively remove about 73%, 64%, 59%, and 82% of NH 4 + -N, TCOD, SCOD, and color, respectively, from the real sheep slaughterhouse waste stream. Based on various up-to-date techno-economic items considered within the break-even point analysis, the sheep slaughterhouse facility was estimated to achieve the targeted net income (€100/day) for any selling prices of €1041.30/ton, €640.05/ton, €263.72/ton, and €1.012/hide, respectively, for struvite, blood meal, bone meal, and raw sheepskin. Steel construction and chemicals were determined as the most costly components for CAPEX (capital expenditures) and OPEX (operating expenditures), respectively, and selling prices of bone meal and raw sheepskin were found to be the most critical income items on the profitability of the slaughterhouse facility. Co-monetary assessment of the struvite process and valorized compounds corroborated the economic viability of the proposed project with the payback periods of about 6.3 and 5.5 years, respectively, for the current market and the profit-oriented conditions without subsidy. The findings of this feasibility analysis, as the first of its own, could be used as guideline for simplifying the decision-making with regards to the feasibility of similar facilities and commercialization of profitable by-products., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)