Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Environmental and economic sustainability of fresh-cut and pre-

cooked vegetables
⁎
Laura Rasines a,b, Serni Morera a, Guillermo San Miguel c, , Francisco Artés-Hernández a,b, Encarna Aguayo a,b,
⁎⁎
a
Postharvest and Refrigeration Group, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT), 30202 Cartagena, Spain
b
Food Quality and Health Group, Institute of Plant Biotechnology (UPCT), Campus Muralla del Mar, 30202 Cartagena, Spain
c
School of Industrial Engineering (ETSII), Grupo de Agroenergética, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), 28006 Madrid, Spain

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• CF of 1 kg of fresh-cut was 0.75 kg CO2eq

and 15 % higher for pre-cooked vegetables.
• LCC of 1 kg fresh-cut and pre-cooked
vegetables was 2.62 €, 15 % higher for
pre-cooked.
• Upstream and Core stages contributed most
to environmental and economic impacts.
• Contribution of Core stage is higher in E-
LCC; labour cost was the main contributor.
• Upstream was the least eco-efficient
lifecycle stage, with an average 0.45 kg
CO2eq/€.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Jacopo Bacenetti Due to the growing awareness about the environmental and economic sustainability of food products, the present
research aims to evaluate the sustainability of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables, a niche market with growing de-
Keywords: mand. An analysis was carried out using a detailed material, energy, and economic inventory based on a commercial
Life cycle assessment food processing plant located in northeast Spain. The environmental sustainability was determined using process-
Environmental life cycle costing
based environmental life cycle assessment (E-LCA), applying a cradle-to-market approach, and using the EF3.0 impact
Eco-efficiency
Cradle-to-market
assessment methodology to quantify impacts on five midpoint categories (climate change, photochemical ozone for-
Carbon footprint mation, acidification, freshwater eutrophication, and fossil resource use) and an aggregated single score. Additionally,
Ready to eat an environmental life cycle costing (E-LCC) was performed. The pre-cooked vegetable products showed a higher envi-
ronmental footprint than the fresh-cut products in all the impact categories (between 14.0 % and 39.9 %) and involved
higher life cycle costs (15.2 %), due to the increased demand for ingredients, packaging materials, and electricity con-
sumption per FU (kg of product). The carbon footprint (CF) and the cost for the fresh-cut products were 0.72 kg CO2
eq/kg and 2.62 €/kg, respectively, compared to 0.86 kg CO2/kg and 3.02 €/kg for the pre-cooked vegetables. The
environmental profiles of both products were rather similar, with a dominance of the Upstream stage (production of
ingredients and packaging materials), followed by the Core stage (mainly due to electricity consumed during vegetable
processing). The relevance of the Core stage is amplified in the economic analysis due to the incorporation of certain

Abbreviations: CIT, corporate income tax; CF, carbon footprint; CO2, carbon dioxide; EC, European Commission; EPCM, engineering, procurement, and construction project; EF, environmental
footprint; E-LCA, environmental life cycle assessment; E-LCC, environmental life cycle costing; EoL, end-of-life; EPD, environmental product declarations; EPCM, engineering, procurement and
construction management project; Eq, equivalent; EU, European Union; IFPA, International Fresh-cut Produce Association; FU, functional unit; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; GVA,
gross value added; GHG, greenhouse gas emissions; HDPE, high density polyethylene; IPCC, intergovernmental panel on climate change; ISO, international organization for standardization;
LCI, life cycle inventory; LCIA, life cycle impact assessment; LCSA, life cycle sustainability assessment; NPV, net present value; PCR, product category rules; PEF, product environmental footprint;
PP, polypropylene; SS, single score.
⁎ Corresponding author.
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: E. Aguayo, Postharvest and Refrigeration Group, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT), 30202 Cartagena, Spain.
E-mail addresses: g.sanmiguel@upm.es (G.S. Miguel), encarna.aguayo@upct.es (E. Aguayo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162169
Received 23 November 2022; Received in revised form 17 January 2023; Accepted 7 February 2023
Available online 11 February 2023
0048-9697/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V.
L. Rasines et al.
processes which were not included in the process-based E-LCA (e.g., labour, capital, insurance, maintenance costs,
etc.). To integrate the economic and environmental analyses, an eco-efficiency index was calculated that describes
the carbon emissions per unit of monetary cost, resulting in 0.27 kg CO2eq/€ for the fresh-cut and 0.28 kg CO2 eq/€
for the pre-cooked vegetables.
1. Introduction
Agri-food industries have increased their variety of marketed products,
introducing a wide range of convenience foods, such as fresh-cut and pre-
cooked vegetables. The International Fresh-cut Produce Association
(IFPA) defines fresh-cut (also referred to as fourth range) products as any
fruit or vegetable, or combination thereof, that has been physically altered
(trimmed, washed, sliced, chopped, peeled, and/or cut, etc.) but is sold in
the fresh state. These products are usually marketed in packaged form as
bagged salads, baby-cut carrots, broccoli florets, etc. (Garrido et al.,
2022). Moreover, pre-cooked products (also referred to as fifth range)
include fruits and vegetables that have been subjected to physical alteration
(as above) followed by additional processing (e.g., steaming, grilling or
other type of transformation) prior to being packaged (vacuum or under
protective atmosphere) that guarantees a longer shelf life. Pre-cooked
products usually have heat-resistant packaging to facilitate reheating in
conventional or microwave ovens prior to consumption by the end-user.
Both fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables must be kept refrigerated
throughout their storage and distribution.
The production of fresh-cut vegetables and pre-cooked meals in Spain
amounted to 307,780 kg and 778,961 kg in 2020, respectively, which rep-
resents increases of 37.2 % and 13.8 % with respect to the values reported
in 2018 (MAPA, 2018, 2021). These products meet the needs of a modern
fast-paced lifestyle: they are convenient, quick and easy to prepare, provid-
ing a good choice for a fast-paced lifestyle, with high organoleptic quality,
similar to homemade meals (Baselice et al., 2017; Contini et al., 2018;
Hamermesh, 2007; Jabs and Devine, 2006). However, increased processing
and packaging of food products could lead to more sustainability problems.
The life cycle assessment is a reference tool which allows the determina-
tion of the environmental impact. Thus, the environmental sustainability of
fresh-cut products was studied by Fusi et al. (2016) who assessed the
environmental impact of fresh-cut salad, reporting that the most notable
impacts were associated with the management of the wastewater generated
in the food processing stage, followed by the agricultural phase of vegetable
production. Vigil et al. (2020a) evaluated the environmental impact of
fresh-cut vegetables, focusing on the washing stage using different water
sanitising agents and membranes. Vigil et al. (2020b) identified the agricul-
tural phase as the most damaging in fresh-cut products and quantified the
benefits of using active packaging. Giovenzana et al. (2021) assessed the
environmental impact of fresh-cut salads and reported that consumer
domestic habits amounted to 15–18 % of the overall carbon footprint
(CF) of the product. Regarding pre-cooked products, Schmidt Rivera and
Azapagic (2019) assessed the environmental impact of the industrial pro-
duction of the most popular pre-cooked products on the UK market, identi-
fying the ingredients production as the greatest environmental contribution
stage. San Miguel and Ruiz (2021) evaluated the environmental impact of
the industrial production of a canned bean and pork stew, also reporting
the dominance of the ingredient production stage, particularly those of
animal origin. Schmidt Rivera et al. (2014) compared the environmental
impacts of industrial production of pre-cooked products and home-made
meals, reporting that the latter generated lower environmental burdens,
which were associated primarily with the production of raw materials
and energy used during the consumption stage.
Nevertheless, a product's sustainability is not only related to its environ-
mental performance but also to the economic and social impacts that it may
generate on its human surroundings. Environmental Life Cycle Costing (E-
LCC) analysis is a complementary methodology to E-LCA which is used to
analyse the economic sustainability of products with a life cycle perspective
(Gruda et al., 2019; Schau et al., 2011). The coordinated application of E-
2
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
LCC and E-LCA enables win-win situations and sustainability trade-offs in
the life cycle of a product (Hunkeler et al., 2008; Rodger et al., 2018).
In principle, both the E-LCA and E-LCC should be performed using a co-
herent approach based on the ISO 14040 methodological framework,
which means defining similar functional units, system boundaries, etc.
However, applying this consistent approach is not always evident or
straightforward (Fauzi et al., 2019). For instance, the E-LCA considers back-
ground processes from a multi-stakeholder perspective, whilst the E-LCC
only considers the monetary flows from a single-stakeholder perspective.
There are no fixed guidelines on how to concurrently assess both the
economic and the environmental indicators produced through E-LCC and
E-LCA; the time dependence of the economic analysis, which is defined
using inflation and discount rates, is not usually applied in environmental
analysis. In addition, not all economic flows are directly associated with
the physical flows employed in E-LCA (e.g., labour or insurances)
(Falcone et al., 2016; França et al., 2021; Rebitzer, 2005).
The integration of economic and environmental results facilitates deci-
sion making. According to Miah et al. (2017), most studies using LCC and E-
LCA report the results of these methodologies separately, without making
an effort to analyse them as a whole. This is the case of García-Herrero
et al. (2019, 2021) who assessed the environmental and economic sustain-
ability of school meals, reporting a CF between 2.18 and 2.30 kg CO2 eq/
meal and economic costs of 4.62$ per meal in the United States. Compara-
tively, lower CF (1.05 to 1.57 kg CO2 eq per meal) but higher costs (6.12 to
6.37 €) per meal were obtained in the case of school meals in Italy. Both
studies highlight the dominance of procurement in the environmental di-
mension and of labour in the economic dimension. González et al. (2020)
evaluated the environmental and economic sustainability associated with
energy recovery from fresh-cut fruits and vegetables by anaerobic digestion
in a small-scale reactor, describing environmental savings from the produc-
tion of electricity and thermal energy, as well as the substitution of chemi-
cal fertilisers with the sludge. However, that work suggested that said
technology was not economically viable at such a small scale. One weak-
ness of those studies concerns the completeness of the economic invento-
ries; in some cases, they did not include important items such as waste
disposal and societal taxes, certain energy requirements, insurances, etc.
Some studies have attempted to integrate the results of E-LCC/E-LCA.
For instance, Canaj et al. (2021) described the environmental and economic
sustainability of vineyard cropping systems using conventional and
integrated cropping methods (with reclaimed water) to produce an eco-
efficiency index that described environmental and economic savings from
the integrated cropping system. Falcone et al. (2016) calculated a sustain-
ability index using multicriteria decision analysis to rank viticulture
production scenarios. The authors revealed some limitations in the integra-
tion of E-LCA/E-LCC, such as the lack of full adaptation of both frameworks
and the assumption of static prices during the reference period. Zhen et al.
(2020) calculated the eco-efficiency index (the profit per environmental
impact generated in greenhouse vegetable production) for one year of oper-
ation. The best eco-efficiency index was for the community-supported farm,
due to a combination of lower environmental impacts and higher revenues.
That study also found that the largest contributor to the overall cost was
labour. Concerning E-LCA, they found a limitation with the uncertainty of
the inventory, especially for the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions
from fertilisation techniques.
Based on the state of the art, the present research aims to broaden the
knowledge available in currently published works on the combined eco-
nomic and environmental analysis of food products, including fresh cut
and pre-cooked vegetables. Furthermore, it will facilitate decision making
in the design and implementation of strategies that enhance sustainability.
L. Rasines et al.
2. Methodology
2.1. Goal definition
The main objective of this work was to evaluate the environmental and
economic sustainability of the fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables indus-
try. Secondary objectives included: i) To quantify the characterised impacts
for the selected categories and analyse the differences between products; ii)
In the environmental assessment, to identify the most adversely affected
impact categories through the use of the single score indicator; iii) To de-
scribe the contribution of the different life cycle stages to the environmental
load of both vegetable products; iv) To analyse the production costs of both
products and the contribution of the life cycle stages to the costs; and v) To
obtain the eco-efficiency index of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables.
2.2. Scope definition
2.2.1. System description and system boundaries
The analysis is based on two types of food products: fresh-cut and pre-
cooked vegetables. Table 1 shows the life cycle stages and specific processes
considered in this study: i) Upstream, which considers the production of
fresh vegetables and other materials used in the agricultural stage, and
the disinfectants, sauces and packaging materials needed in the processing
stage; ii) Core, which describes the actual processing of the vegetables into
finished products, and includes the transport of raw vegetables to the fac-
tory as well as electricity and water consumption, wastewater and biowaste
treatment, building construction and manufacturing of production equip-
ment. This stage also comprises specific economic aspects associated with
the construction and operation of the factory, such as financial cost, main-
tenance, insurances, labour costs and taxes; and iii) Downstream, which
considers the transport of the packaged fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables
to the market, end-of-life management of packaging materials and the
residual value of the building and equipment after 15 years of operation
(this latter issue only in the E-LCC).
Fig. 1 presents the life cycle diagram and system boundaries of the fresh-
cut and pre-cooked vegetables, differentiating between processes used in
the environmental (material and energy flows in black) and economic
(monetary costs in blue) analyses. Fig. 2 shows an example of fresh-cut
and pre-cooked vegetables. In this study, fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegeta-
bles were mainly constituted by different quantities and combinations of
the following vegetables: cauliflower, broccoli, green bean, fava bean,
carrot, onion, potato, leek, celery, and eggplant (only pre-cooked products
used eggplant). The company markets six different mixtures of fresh-cut
vegetables (packaged in 0.8 kg and 0.4 kg trays) and five different mixtures
of pre-cooked vegetables (packaged in 0.4 kg bags or trays). Vegetables are
Table 1
Life cycle structure used for the E-LCA and the E-LCC of fresh-cut and pre-cooked
vegetables.
- Agriculture production of vegetables
- Sauce production (oil and bechamel)
Upstream - Extraction of raw materials and packaging production
- Other auxiliary materials need in the production (chlorine and
detergent)
- Building construction and machinery production
- Financial costa
- Building and machinery maintenance and insurancesa
- Transport of all commodities from upstream to core
Core
- Electricity and water consumption
- Wastewater and biowaste management
- Laboura
- Taxesa
- Transport of packaged fresh-cut and pre-cooked products to market
Downstream - Waste management of packaging materials
- Residual value of building and machinerya
a
Items considered only in the E-LCC.
3
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
transported from the field to the factory by road (30 km) using diesel-
powered heavy-duty trucks (7.5–16 t). As González Benavente-García and
López Marín (2003) stated, the distance between these two places may dif-
fer but they estimate the same average distance. All other inputs are carried
by road (100 km) using the same type of truck, except for the equipment
which is assumed to be by diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks (>32 t).
For the manufacturing of the products, the factory has one common pro-
cessing line which then splits into two additional lines: one for fresh-cut
vegetables and the other for the pre-cooked vegetables. The common part
can be defined as the preparation line and consists of a reception stage
where vegetables are received, sorted, cut, peeled, cleaned, and disinfected.
Subsequently, those vegetables are rinsed to remove any excess of disinfec-
tant using a mechanical centrifuge and cold-stored prior to processing in
the fresh-cut or pre-cooked lines.
The specific fresh-cut vegetables line includes the following processes:
dosing, weighing, and packaging into rectangular plastic trays. After the
packaging step, the vegetables are sent to the metal detector and finally,
they are placed in plastic crates, palletised and cold-stored until they are
distributed to the market. The specific pre-cooked vegetables line includes
the processes of blanching and draining the prepared vegetables. The
vegetables are then dosed in the appropriate packaging (plastic trays or
bags suitable for reheating in the microwave, and the different sauces are
added (oil or bechamel). The product is packed with plastic film and
receives thermal treatment (90–120 °C). Finally, the pre-cooked vegetables
trays are covered by cardboard, placed in plastic crates, palletised, and
cold-stored until they are distributed to the market.
Finally, the packaged fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables are distrib-
uted to the market (500 km) using refrigerated 16–32 t trucks. The waste
management of the packaging materials considered in this study is that
published by the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the
Demographic Challenge (MITECO, 2019) as follows (recycling/incinera-
tion with energy recovery/landfilling): plastics (51.5/15.3/33.2 %),
cardboard (72.9/3.5/23.6 %), and wood (66.9/13.9/19.2 %).
2.2.2. Functional unit
The functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of finished fresh-cut or pre-cooked
vegetables at the gate of the marketplace (the packaging mass was not
included in the 1 kg of product).
2.2.3. Allocation and multifunctionality
The factory considered in this investigation is dedicated to the produc-
tion of both fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables. The packaging lines are
specific for each product; the blanching and thermal treatment lines were
only used for pre-cooked vegetables, thus allowing direct allocation. A
mass allocation approach was applied to assign materials and energy inputs
and residual outputs shared between the two production lines and the
common processing line considering a 66.7 wt% share of fresh-cut and a
33.3 wt% share of pre-cooked vegetable products. The same allocation
approach was used to determine the economic costs associated to the
expenditures shared between these two products, and included the finan-
cial costs, insurances, labour, and taxes.
The biowaste generated at the factory is used for animal feed. A system
expansion approach was used to determine the environmental savings asso-
ciated with replacing animal feeding maize with this product, taking the
nutritional value on fresh weight into consideration (USDA, 2021).
2.2.4. Impact assessment methodologies and impact categories
The EF 3.0 v.1 life cycle impact assessment methodology was used
(Fazio et al., 2018) following the recommendations set out by the Product
Environmental Footprint Guide (Zampori and Pant, 2019). According to
the Product Category Rules (UN CPC 2132, 2139) (EPD System, 2021),
Climate change, Photochemical ozone formation, Acidification, Freshwater
eutrophication, and Resource use, fossils impact categories were included.
In addition, the aggregated Single Score (SS) based on the 16 midpoint
categories of the EF 3.0 v.1 method was also considered. The economic
assessment considers costs expressed in 2021 euros (€2021).
L. Rasines et al. Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169

Fig. 1. Life cycle diagram describing the production process diagram and system boundaries for the environmental and the economic assessments of the studied products
(fresh-cut vegetables and pre-cooked vegetables).

2.2.5. Inventory data collection
Foreground inventory data originates from the execution of an Engi-
neering, Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM) project for
a vegetable processing plant designed in 2020 and planned for construction
in northeast Spain. Background inventory data referring to vegetable
ingredients (including sauces and olive oil), transport, electricity, water,
disinfectant, packaging materials, and waste treatment were sourced from
commercial LCI databases: Ecoinvent 3.8 (Ecoinvent, 2021) and Agribalyse
v 3.0.1 (Asselin-Balençon et al., 2020). Some of these background invento-
ries have been modified to ensure technological and geographical represen-
tativeness of the system under study with regard to regulatory restrictions
in the use of certain active ingredients in agricultural phytosanitary
products (insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides). In addition, the electric-
ity production dataset was adapted to the Spanish electricity mix of 2021.
Economic inventories for raw materials, disinfectants, salaries, and mainte-
nance were sourced from the EPCM. Costs relating to tap water, electricity,
and waste treatments were directly obtained from the supplier companies.
Transport costs from the factory to the market were calculated using
updated information from the Spanish Road Freight Transport Cost Obser-
vatory (MITMA, 2021).
2.2.6. Monetary considerations
The E-LCC was carried out considering the monetary costs associated
with the production of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables over a period

Fig. 2. Examples of a) fresh-cut and b) pre-cooked products.

4
L. Rasines et al. Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169

of 15 years, between 2021 and 2036. The economic analysis assumed 50 %
financing of capital investment through a bank loan (5 % fixed interest for
15 years) and 50 % provided by equity. A 5 % real discount rate (nominal
minus inflation) was used to update future cash flows into net present
value (NPV) using Eq. (1)
Rt
NPV ði; N Þ ¼ ∑15
0 ð1Þ
ð1 þ iÞt
where i represents the discount rate (5 %), t represents the time of cash flow
(from 0 to15 years) and Rt represents the net cash flow per year (€).
The lifespan of the equipment was assumed to be 15 years, and 50 years
for the building. For that reason, the proportional cost of the building acqui-
sition was calculated by applying the formula of the technical amortisation
for 15 years of operation. The residual value was also taken into account,
considering that 10 % of the investment in the building and equipment is
recovered at the end of the 15 years of operation.
Monetary revenues required to calculate the corporate income tax (CIT)
were calculated assuming a wholesale price of 4.38 €/kg for the fresh-cut
and 4.63 €/kg for the pre-cooked vegetables reported by the Spanish Min-
istry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA, 2021). A 25 % CIT was ap-
plied according to the guidelines published by the Spanish Ministry of
Finance (MINHAP, 2021).
2.2.7. Eco-efficiency (E/E) assessment
In this study, the eco-efficiency was defined as the environmental im-
pact (E-LCC) against its product system value (E-LCA). The eco-efficiency
profile was calculated for chosen mid-point categories and expressed as
an eco-efficient indicator per each impact category (ISO, 2012). In this
instance, the lowest score corresponded to the highest eco-efficient product
or stage.
2.2.8. Others
The E-LCA was performed using SimaPro 9.3. (Pré Consultant, 2022).
Microsoft Excel© was used for calculating and modelling the E-LCC and
eco-efficiency index.
2.3. Life cycle inventory assessment
Table 2 details the environmental and economic life cycle inventory
(LCI) per functional unit (FU) of the fresh-cut and pre-cooked product
systems, structured according to the life cycle stages proposed in the PCR:
Upstream, Core, and Downstream. As shown in Table 2, due to vegetable
losses during the processing stage (sorting, peeling, cutting, and washing),
the production of 1 kg of the final product (FU) required the utilisation of
1.30 kg of vegetables in the case of the fresh-cut vegetables, and 1.22 kg
of vegetables in the case of the pre-cooked vegetables. This difference be-
tween products is because, for the same FU for each one, the pre-cooked
ones also contained sauces.
For the E-LCA and the E-LCC, in the Upstream stage, the main differ-
ences between the two product systems were related to the inclusion of
sauces and different packaging materials for the pre-cooked products, and
because of the higher vegetable content per FU for the fresh-cut products.
Regarding the Core stage, the inventory data reflects the direct relationship
between the mass of vegetables required per FU of product and the mass
of biowaste generated. Processing the pre-cooked vegetables consumed
more water and electricity than processing the fresh-cut vegetables, due
to the blanching and thermal treatment operations applied to the former.

Table 2
Life cycle inventory for the environmental and cost assessments of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables products, all the information is referred to the FU (1 kg).
E-LCA E-LCC (€/FU)

Fresh-cut Pre-cooked Unit Fresh-cut Pre-cooked

Cauliflower, broccoli, green bean, fava bean, carrot, onion,

Vegetables production 1.30E+00 1.22E+00 kg 7.13E−01 6.63E−01
potato, leek, celery, and eggplant
Bechamel – 4.00E−02 kg – 1.19E−01
Sauces production
Oil – 2.00E−02 kg – 3.19E−02
HDPE bins (for harvesting stage) 2.40E−03 2.40E−03 kg 2.49E−02 2.49E-02
PP tray 2.75E−02 1.95E−02 kg 2.39E−01 2.39E-01
Primary
PP plate – 1.95E−02 kg – 2.39E-01
packaging
Upstream PE/EVOH/PE film 4.71E−02 4.71E−02 kg 7.50E−03 7.50E-03
Packaging materials
PP bags – 1.61E−03 kg – 7.96E-02
production
Secondary Cardboard – 3.00E−02 kg – 2.39E-01
packaging PP crates 2.49E−02 2.84E−02 kg 9.23E−03 1.48E-02
Tertiary PP film (for pallet wrapping) 6.94E−04 6.00E−04 kg 4.25E−04 4.07E-03
packaging Wooden pallet 1.81E−02 1.55E−02 kg 2.88E−03 2.47E-03
Chlorine 1.01E−02 9.53E−03 L 2.42E−03 2.28E−03
Auxiliary materials production
Detergent 3.00E−03 3.00E−03 kg 5.39E−03 5.39E−03

Manufacturing of production building 1.19E−04 1.19E−04 m2 5.24E−02 5.24E−02

Infrastructure Manufacturing of production equipment 7.33E−03 7.33E−03 kg 7.15E−02 7.15E−02
Financial cost (loan interest) – – 3.10E−03 3.10E−03
Diesel truck (7.5–16 t) for vegetables, packaging materials, 6.34E−02 6.54E−02 tkm 2.54E−02 2.84E−02
sauces, and auxiliary materials transport
Transport of materials to core

Diesel truck (>32 t) for machinery transport

Energy consumption Electricity 8.00E−01 1.01E+01 kWh 6.57E−02 9.64E−02
Core Vegetable washing and rinsing 8.45E+00 7.94E+00 L 1.34E−02 1.26E−02
Water consumption Bleaching and sterilisation – 4.14E+00 L – 6.58E−03
Facility cleaning 9.00E−01 9.00E−01 L 1.43E−03 1.43E−03
Labour Staff – – 7.66E−01 7.66E−01
Facility Building and machinery maintenance – – 1.06E−01 1.06E−01
Building and machinery insurances – – 4.39E−02 4.39E−02
Taxes – – 1.48E−01 7.22E−02
Wastewater 8.45E+00 1.30E+01 L 4.01E−03 4.33E−03
Waste treatment
Biowaste 3.00E−01 2.80E−01 kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Transport Transport to marketplace (500 km by 16–32 t refrigerated truck) 5.59E−01 5.71E−01 tkm 3.22E−01 3.29E−01
Downstream Waste treatment Packaging 1.21E−01 1.45E−01 kg 3.03E−03 3.03E−03
Facilities Building and machinery residual value – – −5.96E−03 −5.96E−03

5
L. Rasines et al. Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169

Table 3
Characterised environmental footprints and economic costs per functional unit of fresh-cut vegetables (1 kg).
Impact category Unit Total Upstream Core Downstream

Climate change kg CO2 eq 7.15E−01 4.91E−01 1.43E−01 8.13E−02

Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq 2.62E−03 1.71E−03 5.27E−04 3.78E−04
Acidification mol H+ eq 5.10E−03 4.13E−03 4.66E−04 5.01E−04
Eutrophication, freshwater kg P eq 1.60E−04 1.29E−04 2.90E−05 2.67E−06
Resource use, fossils MJ 1.38E+01 8.86E+00 4.89E+00 9.49E−02
Single Score μPt 1.25E+02 9.99E+01 1.91E+01 6.21E+00
Cost € 2.62E+00 1.00E+00 1.30E+00 3.19E−01

Regarding the Downstream stage, transportation needs (t·km) for the pre-
cooked vegetables were slightly higher per FU due to the weight of the
packaging elements (heavier packaging is required for pre-cooked vegeta-
bles and the trays are covered by cardboard).
Concerning the E-LCC inventory, the total operating costs were
estimated at 1,593,489 €2021, 33 % contributed by fixed costs and 67 %
by variable operating costs (shown in supplementary information) for an
annual production of 270,000 kg of fresh-cut and 135,000 kg of pre-
cooked vegetables. This resulted in total annual revenue of 1,182,600 €/
year and 625,050 €/year, respectively (Table S1).
Greater consumption of resources leads to higher costs. For instance, in
the Upstream stage, the cost of ingredients (vegetables and sauces) and
packaging per FU were slightly higher in the pre-cooked vegetables. In
contrast, the cost of auxiliary materials per FU was higher for the fresh-
cut vegetables because more vegetables were needed per FU. Regarding
the Core stage, the costs related to transporting materials to this stage
such as electricity, water consumption, and wastewater treatment were
higher for the pre-cooked vegetables. The fresh-cut vegetables produced a
higher quantity of biowaste and had a higher tax cost, since they were
directly related with the benefits obtained from the products' sales (the
difference between the selling price and the production costs, which was
higher for the fresh-cut vegetables than for the pre-cooked vegetables).
Other costs related to infrastructure and maintenance, insurances, and
labour were the same for both products since a mass allocation was
made. It should be noted that the E-LCC inventory included some items in
the Core stage which were not considered in the E-LCA, such as financial
costs, building and equipment maintenance, insurances, labour, and taxes.
Finally, concerning the Downstream stage, the costs were higher for the
pre-cooked products because more packaging was employed in this prod-
uct, thereby making it a heavier product, which involved higher transporta-
tion needs. As mentioned in Section 2.2.6, in this stage, the residual value of
the building and equipment was considered after 15 years of operation and
was considered as an income.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Environmental footprint of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables
3.1.1. Characterised environmental impacts for the fresh-cut and pre-cooked
vegetables
Tables 3 and 4 show the environmental burdens generated by the fresh-
cut and pre-cooked products, whose CFs were calculated to be 0.72 kg
CO2eq/kg and 0.86 kg CO2eq/kg, respectively. The processing and
packaging of pre-cooked vegetables required additional steps, such as
blanching and a thermal treatment which implied a slightly higher CF
(19.8 %). These data are in line with other vegetables studies, Rasines
et al. (2023) estimated, from cradle-to-market, 0.24 kg CO2eq/kg for
whole fresh cauliflower, and Mogensen et al. (2020), using a cradle-to-
market approach, obtained a CF of 0.33 kg CO2eq/kg for beetroot. Stone
et al. (2021) estimated an average CF of 0.28 kg CO2eq/kg for the local pro-
duction of most consumed vegetables in the Midwest US, using a cradle-to-
grave approach. As expected in our study, the processing of the fresh vege-
tables into fresh-cut or pre-cooked involved a higher CF. On the other hand,
animal-based pre-cooked products generate higher environmental burdens
than pre-cooked vegetables. For example, Sieti et al. (2019) assessed the en-
vironmental impact of ready-made baby foods (cradle-to-grave), reporting
CFs ranging from 1.28 kg CO2eq/kg for dry porridge powder (mix of ce-
reals, vegetables, oil and sugars) to 5.5 CO2eq/kg for spaghetti Bolognese.
Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic (2019) reported comparatively higher CF
for ready meals consumed in the UK (cradle-to-grave), with 5.8 kg
CO2eq/kg for a pork roast and 13.9 kg CO2eq/kg for an industrially pro-
duced lasagne.
Fig. 3 illustrates the contribution of each impact on the three life cycle
stages considered in this study: Upstream (production of fresh vegetables
and other raw materials), Core (processing into finished vegetable
products) and Downstream (transport to market). There is a clear domi-
nance of the Upstream stage for both the fresh-cut and for the pre-cooked
vegetables; this trend was detected in all the impact categories evaluated
(between 60 % and 82 %). As expected, the contribution of the Upstream
phase was most significant in those impact categories that are typically
associated with the production of fresh vegetables (agriculture) and the
manufacture of other raw materials (plastics, disinfectants), such as acidifi-
cation (81–82 %), freshwater eutrophication (77.8–80.3 %) and climate
change (67.9–68.8 %). The Core stage was the second highest contributor
in both vegetable products, ranging from 9.1 % to 39.6 %. It is reasonable
that higher shares were observed in processes associated with industrial
processing activity and electricity consumption (e.g., fossil resource use,
ozone photochemical formation, and climate change). The Downstream
stage was <14.5 % in all impact categories, with photochemical ozone
formation and climate change being the most important, both were related
to diesel production and its combustion in truck engines.
3.1.2. Single score
The single score results confirmed that the fresh-cut vegetables versus
the pre-cooked generated lower environmental burdens, 125.1 μPt versus
151.1 μPt, respectively (Fig. 4). This was a difference of 20.8 % as the

Table 4
Characterised environmental footprints and economic costs per functional unit of pre-cooked vegetables (1 kg).
Impact category Unit Total Upstream Core Downstream

Climate change kg CO2 eq 8.57E−01 5.82E−01 1.91E−01 8.45E−02

Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq 3.07E−03 2.00E−03 6.71E−04 3.92E−04
Acidification mol H+ eq 7.13E−03 5.85E−03 7.74E−04 5.12E−04
Eutrophication, freshwater kg P eq 2.14E−04 1.66E−04 4.44E−05 2.99E−06
Resource use, fossils MJ 1.58E+01 9.35E+00 6.25E+00 1.80E−01
Single Score μPt 1.51E+02 1.18E+02 2.69E+01 6.53E+00
Cost € 3.02E+00 1.43E+00 1.26E+00 3.26E−01

6
L. Rasines et al. Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169

Fig. 3. Contribution of the three life cycle stages (Upstream, Core, and Downstream) to the environmental impacts and costs of the fresh-cut vegetables (a) and pre-cooked
vegetables (b). Only values above 5 % are shown.

Fig. 4. Single score results obtained for the combination of the 16 midpoint impact categories from the EF 3.0 method (SS16) for fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables
represented per FU (1 kg).

7
L. Rasines et al.
pre-cooked vegetables were more processed than the fresh-cut vegetables,
requiring the production of sauces and more packaging material, greater
water consumption for blanching and thermal treatment, higher energy
consumption and waste treatment and transport to market, for the FU.
For both types of vegetable products, the results identified water use
(22.6 %), climate change (14.8 %) and fossil resource use (13.8 %) as
being the dominant impact categories, mainly due to the dependence of
those products on water use for the agricultural phase, the processing activ-
ities, and the production of material packaging.
3.1.3. Environmental footprint analysis of specific stages and processes
In the following lines, we analyse the contribution of the different
processes included in these three main stages in detail.
3.1.3.1. Upstream. The environmental burdens generated by fresh-cut vege-
tables were between 5.6 % and 41.5 % lower than those estimated for the
pre-cooked vegetables. For example, the CF was 0.49 kg CO2eq/kg for the
fresh-cut and 0.58 kg CO2eq/kg for the pre-cooked vegetables, 18.5 %
higher (Tables 3 and 4). As mentioned before and shown in Fig. 5, these dif-
ferences between products were related mainly to the production of sauces
and the use of more packaging material such as cardboard for the pre-
cooked vegetables. However, for both types of vegetables, the main contrib-
utor to most of the environmental impacts were the ingredients (vegetables
for fresh-cut, and vegetables and sauces for pre-cooked products), ranging
from 23.3 % to 74.3 % for the fresh-cut and from 29.7 % to 81.6 % for
the pre-cooked products. The acidification, photochemical ozone formation
and climate change impact categories were strongly affected by ingredients
production (fresh vegetable and sauces), due to the accumulation of nitrate
Fig. 5. Contribution to the environmental impacts and costs of the processes included in the Upstream stage for fresh-cut vegetables (a) and pre-cooked vegetables (b). Only
values above 5 % are shown.
8
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
from fertilisation during the vegetable's growth in the field, the production
of synthetic fertilisers and diesel combustion for field operations (Martin-
Gorriz et al., 2020). In the bechamel sauce, having milk as its main compo-
nent, other authors have reported that climate change and acidification
were the most relevant impact categories in milk production (Santos
et al., 2022), with the corn silage production due to grain production for
feed, cattle breeding, and pasture production being the main contributor
to those impact categories (Carvalho et al., 2022). To place this result in
context, ingredients production had a CF 0.24 kg CO2eq/kg for the fresh-
cut vegetables versus 0.32 kg CO2eq/kg for the pre-cooked vegetables for
the overall production process and its contribution ranged from 30.5 to
34.5 % (Tables S2 and S3). This finding is in accordance with other studies,
where the ingredients production was the largest contributor to the climate
change impact category (García-Herrero et al., 2021; San Miguel and
Ruiz, 2021; Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic, 2019; Schmidt Rivera et al.,
2014). However, this impact can vary widely depending on the nature of
the ingredients, since animal-based foods tend to have a higher environ-
mental footprint than plant-based products (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).
The second main contributor to all impact categories in the Upstream
stage, was the packaging material: primary packaging (materials in direct
contact with food) and secondary packaging (cardboard used only in pre-
cooked vegetables to cover the primary packaging plastic and the crates
used for carrying both products during delivery to the market). The highest
contribution to the impact of these materials was for the fossil resource use
impact category (79.9 % to 64.3 %), caused mainly by raw material extrac-
tion for plastic production because they are fossil-based polymers (Walker
and Rothman, 2020). The tertiary packaging (PP film used to wrap the pal-
lets, and wooden pallets) had a negligible influence for all the considered
L. Rasines et al.
environmental impact categories since its contribution to an FU was very
small (one pallet contains an average 252 kg).
Finally, the production of auxiliary materials (chlorine and detergent)
only contributed significantly to the freshwater eutrophication impact cat-
egory (12.4 % for fresh-cut vegetables and 9.2 % for pre-cooked vegeta-
bles), due to the production process of sodium hydroxide, needed for
their manufacture. Fusi et al. (2016) found that sodium hypochlorite had
no relevant contribution to the environmental impact. Nevertheless, its
release after its use could affect other impact categories such as human tox-
icity and freshwater ecotoxicity according to the characterised factors of the
EF 3.0 v.1 method; this release was not considered in the present study.
Concerning the single score, the dominance of the Upstream stage over
the Core and Downstream stages, amounting to 99.9 μPt for the fresh-cut
and 117.7 μPt for the pre-cooked vegetables, is confirmed in Fig. 6. For
both vegetable products, the production of ingredients (vegetables and
sauces) was the prevailing process, with an average contribution of
74.5 % (Fig. 5). Overall, this aggregated indicator describes, for both prod-
ucts, a relative dominance of water use followed by climate change over the
other impact categories, which was mainly due to the water consumed and
fertiliser production for vegetable farming.
3.1.3.2. Core. In the Core phase, the environmental burdens generated by
fresh-cut vegetable processing were between 27.2 and 65.9 % lower than
those obtained for pre-cooked vegetables. For instance, the CF of the
fresh-cut vegetables was 0.14 kg CO2eq/kg, and 0.19 kg CO2eq/kg for the
pre-cooked vegetables, 33.2 % higher (Tables 3 and 4). The difference
lies in a slightly higher electricity and water consumption (e.g., blanching
and thermal treatment) needed for pre-cooked vegetables. Fig. 7 shows
Fig. 6. Single score results for the different life cycle stages considered for fresh-cut vegetables (a) and pre-cooked vegetables (b).
9
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
electricity consumption as being the main contributor to most of the impact
categories in the Core stage. This was observed in both vegetable products,
with similar results, ranging between 37.9 % and 83.1 % for the fresh-cut
vegetables and between 40.0 % and 85.6 % for the pre-cooked vegetables.
Electricity consumption also made a significant contribution to the overall
impact and was the main contributor to the fossil resource use impact cate-
gory (4.5 MJ/kg fresh-cut and 5.75 MJ/kg pre-cooked vegetables,) followed
by the CF (0.13 kg CO2eq/kg for the fresh-cut and 0.16 kg CO2eq/kg for the
pre-cooked vegetables) impact categories (Tables S2 and S3). This is
explained by the fossil fuel energy sources of the Spanish electricity mix
and the relative proportion of renewables. Sieti et al. (2019) also found
that the share of fossil fuels of energy consumption in food manufacturing
significantly affected the climate change, fossil resource depletion, and
ozone layer depletion impact categories. Furthermore, that study found
that after ingredients production, the main hotspots to the overall impact
were the manufacturing process and packaging.
Building construction and manufacturing of production equipment
were the second main contributors to the impacts for both vegetable prod-
ucts; for the fresh-cut products this was between 11.5 and 42.9 %, and for
the pre-cooked vegetables it was between 9.3 and 37.1 % (Fig. 7). This con-
tribution was lower when all processes were evaluated as a whole, ranging
between 3.4 and 9.5 %, with both products obtaining the same CF (0.06 kg
CO2eq/FU, Tables S2 and S3). Concrete production, used for building con-
struction, and obtaining the aluminium, the main material used in building
structures and equipment manufacturing, were the main contributors to the
following impact categories: acidification, freshwater eutrophication, and
photochemical ozone formation impact categories. These results are within
L. Rasines et al.
Fig. 7. Contribution to the environmental impacts and costs of the different processes included in the Core stage for fresh-cut vegetables (a) and pre-cooked vegetables (b).
Only values above 5 % are shown.
the range reported by Lamnatou et al. (2022), who obtained a contribution
from 0.0 % to 42.4 % for the building construction.
Remarkable savings were obtained by biowaste management in all the
impact categories evaluated, especially in acidification and freshwater eu-
trophication. The fresh-cut and the pre-cooked vegetables obtained similar
savings, −0.07 kg to - 0.06 CO2eq/FU, respectively (Tables S1 and S2), due
to the amount of biowaste produced for each product, 0.30 kg/FU for the
fresh-cut and 0.28 kg/FU for the pre-cooked vegetables. These environmen-
tal savings were obtained when biowaste substituted the production of the
corn needed in the animal feed, avoiding the environmental impacts caused
by corn cultivation. In contrast, the wastewater had a noteworthy contribu-
tion to the freshwater eutrophication impact category, 16.7 % for the fresh-
cut and 21.2 % for the pre-cooked vegetables. This was due to the phospho-
rus remaining in the wastewater after its treatment. However, our results
differed from those reported by Fusi et al. (2016), who found a negligible
contribution of wastewater for the freshwater eutrophication impact cate-
gory and a relevant contribution to the CF (1.32 kg CO2eq/kg of fresh-cut
lettuce) due to the energy needed in water treatment plants. In our case,
the CF of wastewater was lower, 0.007 kg CO2eq/FU (Tables S2 and S3).
For the Core stage, the single score was 19.1 μPt for the fresh-cut and
26.9 μPt for the pre-cooked vegetables. Climate change, fossil, mineral and
metals resource use were the most relevant impact categories (Fig. 6), due
to electricity consumption for vegetable processing and obtaining the mate-
rials used for building construction and equipment manufacturing (Fig. 7).
3.1.3.3. Downstream. In the Downstream stage, the environmental burdens
generated by the fresh-cut vegetable processing were between 2.0 % and
11.8 % lower than those obtained for the pre-cooked vegetables. For
instance, the CF was 0.08 kg CO2 eq/kg for the fresh-cut vegetables
and 0.09 kg CO2eq/kg for the pre-cooked vegetables, about 4 % higher.
This difference between products was due to the pre-cooked vegetables
requiring heavier packaging (extra cardboard in the secondary packaging)
and therefore it increased the transportation needs per FU of pre-cooked
vegetables. In addition, this extra packaging entailed a higher waste pack-
aging treatment.
10
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
In the Downstream stage, the transport of the packaged products from
factory to market was clearly the main and dominant contributor to all
impact categories (Fig. 8), reaching 100 % in most of the impact categories
studied for both fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables. However, these
values decreased when the whole process was evaluated jointly considering
the three stages. In this case, the main impact categories were photochem-
ical ozone formation and climate change, with contributions of 12.2 to
15.3 % and 10.6 to 12.2 %, respectively (Tables S2 and S3) with similar
CF, 0.10 kg CO2eq/FU, for both vegetable products. These impact catego-
ries were the most affected due to diesel production and its combustion in
truck engines (Gustafsson et al., 2021). Our results for transport to market
concurred with those of other studies using diesel trucks. For example,
Svanes and Johnsen (2019) obtained a CF between 0.09 and 0.11 kg
CO2eq/kg for refrigerated fruits (441–549 km), Boschiero et al. (2019)
obtained a 0.09 kg CO2eq/kg for apple transport (600 km) and Rasines
et al. (2023) found 0.09 kg CO2eq/kg for packaged cauliflower (500 km).
The positive effect from the packaging end-of-life in most impact cate-
gories must be underlined, since recycling processes enable savings in
raw materials, achieving decreases in the fossil resource use impact
category of between 87.9 and 93.5 % (Fig. 8). However, for the acidifica-
tion impact category, plastics incineration overcomes the savings obtained
in the recycling process.
The single score of the Downstream stage was 6.2 μPt for fresh-cut veg-
etables and 6.5 μP for pre-cooked products. Climate change and particulate
matter were the most relevant impact categories (Fig. 6); both were closely
linked to transport processes, because of diesel production, and its combus-
tion during the distribution stage.
3.2. Assessment of the environmental life cycle costing
Tables 3 and 4 show the costs of producing 1 kg of the fresh-cut (2.62 €/
kg) and the pre-cooked vegetables (3.02 €/kg). The elaboration of the pre-
cooked vegetables was 15.2 % more expensive. The pre-cooked vegetables
required more resources per FU, such as sauces (bechamel and oil), mate-
rial packaging, water and electricity consumption (blanching and thermal
L. Rasines et al.
Fig. 8. Contribution to the environmental impacts and costs of the different processes included in the Downstream stage for fresh-cut vegetables (a) and pre-cooked vegetables
(b). Only values above 5 % are shown.
treatment) (Table 2). For the fresh-cut products, the Core stage was the
highest contributor to the overall costs (49.6 %) followed by Upstream
(38.3 %) and Downstream (12.2 %). However, for the pre-cooked vegeta-
bles, the cost in the Upstream phase obtained the first position (47.4 %),
albeit quite similar to the Core stage (41.8 %), followed by Downstream
(10.4 %) (Fig. 3), following the same pattern as the environmental impact.
3.2.1.1. Upstream. In this phase, the cost of the fresh-cut vegetables was
1.0 €/kg, and 1.43 €/kg for the pre-cooked products. This 43 % increment
was the cost related to sauces and the cardboard used in the secondary
packaging in the pre-cooked vegetables (Tables 3 and 4). The fresh-cut veg-
etables presented as the main contributors to the Upstream costs per FU: the
acquisition of fresh vegetables (71.0 %), followed by primary packaging
(27.0 %), whilst the other processes had a negligible contribution (Fig. 5).
On the other hand, in the pre-cooked vegetables per FU, the main costs con-
tributors were: fresh vegetables acquisition (46.3 %), primary packaging
(24.5 %), secondary packaging (17.7 %), and sauces (10.6 %).
3.2.1.2. Core. In this stage, the production costs were 1.30 €/kg for the fresh-
cut and 1.26 €/kg for the pre-cooked vegetables, in this case the costs were
2.8 % higher for the fresh-cut vegetables (Tables 3 and 4). This small differ-
ence was due to higher taxes (Tables S2 and S3). Both products showed a
similar pattern, highlighting the labour costs (58.9 % for the fresh-cut vege-
tables and 60.5 % for the pre-cooked vegetables) as the highest contributor,
followed by the building and equipment acquisition (9.5 to 9.8 %) and their
maintenance (8.1 to 8.4 %), in both products (Fig. 7).
3.2.1.3. Downstream. The costs in this stage were quite similar for both
products, 0.32 €/kg for the fresh-cut and 0.33 €/kg for the pre-cooked
11
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
vegetables (Tables 3 and 4), with transport to market being the main con-
tributor (99.1 %) (Fig. 8). The cost related to packaging waste management
and the economic savings obtained from selling the building and equip-
ment were negligible for both products.
Finally, considering the contribution of each process to the overall cost
(Tables S1 and S2), the labour cost had the highest values, 29.2 % for the
fresh-cut products and 24.1 % for the pre-cooked vegetables, followed by
ingredients acquisition, 27.2 % for the fresh-cut and 20.8 % for the pre-
cooked vegetables. The sum of both costs reached 56.4 % for the fresh-
cut and 44.9 % for the pre-cooked vegetables. These differences were
the result of an FU of the fresh-cut product containing a larger amount of
fresh vegetables and therefore, the labour and fresh material costs
increased that percentage. However, as we have already mentioned, pre-
cooked vegetables are more expensive than fresh-cut ones.
Comparing our findings with other studies focused on the E-LCC applica-
tion to ready meals, García-Herrero et al. (2021) obtained a total cost of
4.86 $/meal in US canteens (5.73 €2021/meal), and García-Herrero et al.
(2019) reported 6.25 €/meal (6.89 €2021/meal) in Italian canteens. In both ex-
amples, the total cost was higher than our figures, mainly because the “meal”
incorporated vegetables plus other types of ingredients such as meat, which
increase the final cost. However, in those studies, labour and other costs (gen-
eral costs, operation costs, depreciation and cooking centre maintenance),
equivalent to our processing stage (Core), were the main contributors to the
overall cost (around 57 %), followed by ingredients purchase (around 34 %).
3.3. Eco-efficiency index of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables
Eco-efficiency describes the environmental performance of a product
per unit of monetary cost; it is a useful indicator for industry to produce
L. Rasines et al. Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169

Table 5
Eco-efficiency index of fresh-cut vegetables per functional unit (1 kg).
Eco-efficiency index per impact category Unit Total Upstream Core Downstream

Climate change kg CO2 eq/€ 2.73E−01 4.89E−01 1.10E−01 2.55E−01

Photochemical ozone formation kg MVOC eq/€ 9.97E−04 1.70E−03 4.05E−04 1.18E−03
Acidification mol H+ eq/€ 1.94E−03 4.11E−03 3.58E−04 1.57E−03
Eutrophication, freshwater kg P eq/€ 6.11E−05 1.28E−04 2.23E−05 8.38E−06
Resource use, fossils MJ/€ 5.27E+00 8.82E+00 3.76E+00 2.97E−01
Single score μPt/€ 4.77E+01 9.94E+01 1.46E+01 1.94E+01

greater revenues with lower adverse environmental impacts. Tables 5 and 6
show the eco-efficiency index, 0.27 kg CO2eq/€ for the fresh-cut and
0.28 kg CO2 eq/€ for the pre-cooked vegetables, indicating that the
environmental impacts per euro spent were slightly lower in the fresh-cut
vegetables. The lowest index represents the most eco-efficient product
since this activity generates lower adverse environmental impacts. These
indicators can also show differences among life cycle stages. For example,
in both vegetable products, Upstream presented the highest eco-efficiency
index for all impact categories. Regarding the CF, the index for Upstream
was between 0.41 and 0.49 kg CO2eq/€, and for Downstream it averaged
0.25 to 0.26 kg CO2eq/€. Core was the stage with the lowest CF index,
0.11 to 0.15 kg CO2eq/€, which denotes a lower contribution to the envi-
ronmental impacts per euro spent. This explains why the contribution of
the Core to the environmental impacts was lower than its contribution to
the costs. In general, the more processed a product is, the more unit opera-
tions are required, which generates an increase in cost and a greater envi-
ronmental impact.
In order to put these values into context, the relationship between the
total CF and gross value added (GVA) in Spain was estimated to be
0.13 kg CO2eq/€ 2018 for the food industry sector and 0.17 CO2eq/€ 2018
for agriculture production (Gavilán, 2022). In this regard, the eco-
efficiency indices obtained for the fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables
were higher than the average values obtained in those sectors. As men-
tioned, the agriculture sector obtained the highest CO2eq emissions per
monetary unit; in our case the fresh vegetable production in the upstream
stage was also the highest contributor. The CF of the food industry and
agriculture sectors were relatively high, whilst the share of both sectors to
the total GVA only represented 5.4 %. Sectors with high CF per monetary
unit, such as agriculture, transport or manufacturing, have specific risks
which could make the transition towards a more sustainable economy dif-
ficult: higher input prices, rising energy costs and changes in environmental
regulations (Gavilán, 2022).
3.4. Recommendations for environmental and economic mitigation
From these results, some recommendations should be considered for
improving the environmental and economic sustainability of fresh-cut
and pre-cooked vegetables.
a) In relation to the Upstream stage, efforts should be made to reduce the
environmental impacts through the acquisition of vegetables with
respectful fertilisation practices, and with rational use of water and
fossil fuel resources. In this regard, Martin-Gorriz et al. (2020) found
that using organic farming led to a reduction of the environmental
impact of 5–8 % in the case of vegetables farming and of 11–16 % for
woody crops in almost all impact categories. Furthermore, by using
organic fertilisers instead of synthetic fertilisers, the N20 emissions
into the soil could be reduced in the same way as the reduction of en-
ergy resources employed for synthetic fertilisers production (Flynn,
2009; Hanserud et al., 2018). Additionally, Foteinis et al. (2021) and
Foteinis and Chatzisymeon (2016) determined that one of the major
contributors of vegetable cultivation systems was the irrigation, because
the electricity mix used had a rich share of fossil-fuel resources. In that
way, they recommend the integration of renewable resources which
allow the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activ-
ities. Another alternative to reduce the footprint of vegetable cultivation
is the reduction of water consumption as Hamami and Nassereddine
(2020) proposed, by employing wireless sensors that ensure rational
water use. Nevertheless, these changes will affect the total cost of
fresh vegetables, since Canaj et al. (2021) found that the total cost of
farming production was highly influenced by among others: organic
fertilisers, electricity consumption for irrigation, and diesel used for ag-
ricultural machinery. Additionally, packaging material production
could be reduced by eco-design practices to avoid extra-packaging,
such as the secondary cardboard packaging used in the pre-cooked
products, or by optimising the weight of each packaging and materials.
For instance, Lu et al. (2020) developed a list of solutions to mitigate
over-packaging, including these three suggestions that were widely ac-
cepted by consumers: Optimisation of packaging, increasing the
recycled content, and bulk packaging. Sundqvist-andberg and Åkerman
(2021) also suggested similar recommendations to contribute to the cir-
cularity of plastic food packaging: reduce and replace, reuse, and recy-
cle and recover; with the aim of reducing plastic virgin material
consumption and contributing to the implementation of eco-design
practices in packaging production. Consequently, the costs linked to
packaging purchase and transport could be reduced. López-Gálvez
et al. (2021) also described environmental benefits when single-use
cardboard was replaced by reusable plastic crates in the transportation
of fresh fruits and vegetables.
b) Measures should be applied in the electricity consumption to improve
the environmental burdens of the Core stage. Firstly, reducing electric-
ity consumption by improving equipment efficiency, which can also im-
prove productivity. Secondly, the CF of electricity consumption could
be reduced by the integration of renewables into the grid. Thus, for in-
stance Boschiero et al. (2019) obtained a 50 % CF reduction in the ap-
ples handling stage (refrigeration, calibration and packaging) by using
a renewable electricity mix of 88 % hydropower and 12 % photovoltaic,
instead of the country mix. Rothwell et al. (2016) obtained the same CF

Table 6
Eco-efficiency index of pre-cooked vegetables per functional unit (1 kg).
Eco-efficiency index per impact category Unit Total Upstream Core Downstream

Climate change kg CO2 eq/€ 2.83E−01 4.06E−01 1.51E−01 2.59E−01

Photochemical ozone formation kg MVOC eq/€ 1.01E−03 1.40E−03 5.30E−04 1.20E−03
Acidification mol H+ eq/€ 2.36E−03 4.08E−03 6.12E−04 1.57E−03
Eutrophication, freshwater kg P eq/€ 7.07E−05 1.16E−04 3.51E−05 9.16E−06
Resource use, fossils MJ/€ 5.22E+00 6.53E+00 4.94E+00 5.51E−01
Single score μPt/€ 5.00E+01 8.21E+01 2.13E+01 2.00E+01

12
L. Rasines et al.
reduction for a lettuce processing plant, in which they integrated photo-
voltaic panels into the Australian fossil-fuel based grid. Likewise,
Rasines et al. (2023) obtained CF savings that ranged from 11.9 % by
the integration of photovoltaic panels to 67.2 % by the integration of
photovoltaic and absorption cooling system into the current grid in a
fresh vegetable processing factory. Furthermore, that study showed sig-
nificant savings that ranged from 45.4 % for freshwater eutrophication
to 72.1 % for cumulative energy demand when those two technologies
worked together with the grid. Besides this, in the industry, it is also
very important to work towards the reduction of water consumption
by implanting water recirculation techniques because of the large
amount of water used for vegetable washing. Fusi et al. (2016) obtained
a CF reduction of about 15.0 % by employing a water reuse system, and
achieved savings in all impact categories assessed; these ranged from
2.0 % for terrestrial ecotoxicity to 15.0 % for marine eutrophication.
Vigil et al. (2020a) also obtained savings by using filtering membranes
that help the reduction of the environmental impact of sanitation tech-
niques, because they reduce the water stream which is introduced into
the system.
c) To reduce the environmental burden of the Downstream stage, efforts
should be focused on improving transportation. For instance, renewing
the truck fleet with efficient engines can reduce fuel consumption, con-
tributing to costs savings (IEA, 2020). Moreover, the use of vehicles that
run on cleaner fuels leads to significant savings. Thus, Ravigné and Da
Costa (2021) obtained average CF reductions that ranged from 12.3 %
to 75.1 % by using compressed natural gas (CNG), biogas or blends of
both, in comparison with current diesel trucks. Additionally, that
work also evaluated the cost savings of use CNG or biogas rather than
diesel fuel, obtaining an average reduction of 9.5 %. The use of a multi-
modal transport chain can reduce the environmental footprint of
the transport stage, with CF savings ranging from 41.0 to 73.0 %, in
comparison with conventional diesel trucks (Boschiero et al., 2019;
Rasines et al., 2023). Another alternative to reduce the impact caused
by transportation is to improve vehicle loading (Mckinnon, 2000). In
this way, they found that the UK freight transport sector could save
about 475 million litres of fuel by increasing the truck load by 10 %,
320 million litres by reducing empty trips from 29.4 to 25.0 %. How-
ever, these practices could entail more investment costs and thus should
be studied.
4. Conclusions
This study evaluated the environmental and economic sustainability of
fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables through LCA from cradle to market,
obtaining CFs of 0.72 kg CO2eq/kg and 0.86 kg CO2eq/kg, respectively.
The fresh-cut vegetables produced lower environmental footprints than
the pre-cooked products in all the impact categories studied. This is due
to the pre-cooked vegetables requiring additional unit operations, and
also requiring more packaging materials.
Overall, the most affected impact categories were the same for both
vegetable products. The contribution of the water used and climate change
was particularly notable in the vegetable farming stage, associated with the
production of fresh vegetables. Furthermore, fossil resource use was also
relevant, due to electricity consumption for vegetable processing and the
production of plastics for packaging materials.
The environmental burdens associated with the fresh-cut and pre-
cooked vegetables showed a dominance of the Upstream stage, due to the
ingredients production (vegetables and sauces) and the packaging material
production. The Core stage was the second contributor to this environmen-
tal impact, mainly by electricity consumption and by building construction
and manufacturing of production equipment. Downstream, focused on the
transport stage to market, was the stage with the least contribution to all
impact categories assessed.
Concerning the E-LCC, the production costs of the fresh-cut vegetables
(2.62 €/kg) were 15.2 % lower than those of the pre-cooked vegetables
13
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
(3.02 €/kg). The largest contributors to the overall costs were similar in
both vegetable products: ingredients purchase (vegetable and sauces) and
packaging materials in the Upstream; labour costs in the Core; and the
cost of transport to market in the Downstream.
Furthermore, it should be noted that for both products, the load in the Core
stage for the E-LCC was higher than that obtained for the E-LCA, since the E-
LCC included some costs that had no equivalent in the E-LCA, i.e., taxes, finan-
cial cost, building and equipment maintenance, insurances, taxes, and labour.
Therefore, a good and detailed E-LCC should not be limited to the same costs
that can be derived from the E-LCA, rather each assessment should include
parameters that are relevant for each specific analysis.
Finally, by integrating the environmental and economic results, the eco-
efficiency index was 0.27 kg CO2eq/€ for the fresh-cut and 0.28 kg CO2 eq/
€ for the pre-cooked vegetables, indicating that the environmental impacts
per euro spent were slightly lower in the fresh-cut vegetables in most of the
impact categories assessed. In addition, this result also highlights that the
Upstream stage was the least eco-efficient stage.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Laura Rasines: Experiments, Data curation, Methodology, Software,
Investigation, Writing – original draft preparation. Serni Morera: Experi-
ments, Data curation, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft
preparation. Guillermo San Miguel: Conceptualisation, Methodology,
Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Francisco Artés-Hernández: Data curation. Encarna Aguayo: Conceptu-
alisation, Supervision, Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Writing -
review & editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relation-
ships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All the team
reports financial support was provided by Universidad Politécnica de Carta-
gena. All the Team reports financial support was provided by Spain Ministry
of Science and Innovation. All the team reports financial support was pro-
vided by Spanish National Research Agency. All the Team reports financial
support was provided by European Regional Development Fund. None.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Inno-
vation - National Research Agency (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033)
and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”, of the “European Union”
[RTI2018-099139-B-C21]. Laura Rasines acknowledges financial support
by MCIN/AEI and by “ESF Investing in your future” grant [PRE 2019-
090573].
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162169.
References
Asselin-Balençon, A., Broekema, R., Teulon, H., Gastaldi, G., Houssier, J., Moutia, A.,
Rousseau, V., Wermeille, A., Colomb, V., 2020. Agribalyse V 3.0: the French agricultural
and food LCI database. Methodology for the food products. ADEME. https://doc.
agribalyse.fr/documentation-en/agribalyse-data/documentation.
Baselice, A., Colantuoni, F., Lass, D.A., Nardone, G., Stasi, A., 2017. Trends in EU consumers'
attitude towards fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. Food Qual. Prefer. 59, 87–96. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.008.
L. Rasines et al.
Boschiero, M., Zanotelli, D., Ciarapica, F.E., Fadanelli, L., Tagliavini, M., 2019. Greenhouse
gas emissions and energy consumption during the post-harvest life of apples as affected
by storage type, packaging and transport. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 45–56. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.300.
Canaj, K., Morrone, D., Roma, R., Boari, F., Cantore, V., Todorovic, M., 2021. Reclaimedwater
for vineyard irrigation in a Mediterranean context: life cycle environmental impacts, life
cycle costs, and eco-efficiency. Water 13, 2242. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162242.
Carvalho, L.S., Willers, C.D., Soares, B.B., Nogueira, A.R., de Almeida Neto, J.A., Rodrigues,
L.B., 2022. Environmental life cycle assessment of cow milk in a conventional semi-
intensive Brazilian production system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 21259–21274.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17317-5.
Contini, C., Boncinelli, F., Gerini, F., Scozzafava, G., Casini, L., 2018. Investigating the role of
personal and context-related factors in convenience foods consumption. Appetite 126,
26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.031.
Ecoinvent, 2021. Ecoinvent Database 3.8. https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/
data-releases/ecoinvent-3-8/#1610466712069-fcebe4bb-f802 (accessed 12.1.23).
EPD System, 2021. Product Category Rule: UN CPC 2132,2139. Vegetable juice, plant milk,
plant milk based products, and other prepared and preserved vegetables, pulses and po-
tatoes. https://www.environdec.com/pcr-library (accessed 2.3.22).
Falcone, G., De Luca, A.I., Stillitano, T., Strano, A., Romeo, G., Gulisano, G., 2016. Assessment
of environmental and economic impacts of vine-growing combining life cycle assessment,
life cycle costing and multicriterial analysis. Sustainability 8, 793. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su8080793.
Fauzi, R.T., Lavoie, P., Sorelli, L., Heidari, M.D., Amor, B., 2019. Exploring the current chal-
lenges and opportunities of life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 11, 636.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030636.
Fazio, S., Castellani, V., Sala, S., Schau, E.M., Secchi, M., Zampori, L., Diaconu, E., 2018.
Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF life cycle im-
pact assessment methods. ILCD https://doi.org/10.2760/002447.
Flynn, H.C., 2009. Agriculture and climate change: An agenda for negotiation in Copenhagen.
The role of nutrient management in mitigation. http://hdl.handle.net/2164/1274
(accessed 10.1.23).
Foteinis, S., Chatzisymeon, E., 2016. Life cycle assessment of organic versus conventional ag-
riculture. A case study of lettuce cultivation in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2462–2471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.075.
Foteinis, S., Hatzisymeon, M., Borthwick, A.G.L., Chatzisymeon, E., 2021. Environmental im-
pacts of conventional versus organic eggplant cultivation systems: influence of electricity
mix, yield, over-fertilization, and transportation. Environments 8, 23. https://doi.org/10.
3390/environments8030023.
França, W.T., Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., de Francisco, A.C., Moreira, M.T., Piekarski, C.M.,
2021. Integrating life cycle assessment and life cycle cost: a review of environmental-
economic studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26, 244–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-020-01857-y.
Fusi, A., Castellani, V., Bacenetti, J., Cocetta, G., Fiala, M., Guidetti, R., 2016. The environ-
mental impact of the production of fresh cut salad: a case study in Italy. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 21, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1019-z.
García-Herrero, L., De Menna, F., Vittuari, M., 2019. Food waste at school. The environmental
and cost impact of a canteen meal. Waste Manag. 100, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2019.09.027.
García-Herrero, L., Costello, C., De Menna, F., Schreiber, L., Vittuari, M., 2021. Eating away at
sustainability. Food consumption and waste patterns in a US school canteen. J. Clean.
Prod. 279, 123571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123571.
Garrido, V., Ray, M., Otwell, S., Schneider, K., 2022. Guidance for processing fresh-cut pro-
duce in retail operations. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS11300.pdf (accessed
9.5.22).
Gavilán, Á., 2022. Chapter 4 The spanish economy and the climate challenge, in Annual Re-
port 2021. https://repositorio.bde.es/handle/123456789/21115 (accessed 1.2.23).
Giovenzana, V., Casson, A., Beghi, R., Pampuri, A., Fiorindo, I., Tugnolo, A., Guidetti, R.,
2021. Evaluation of consumer domestic habits on the environmental impact of ready-
to-eat and minimally processed fresh-cut lamb’s lettuce. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28,
925–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.021.
González Benavente-García, A., López Marín, J., 2003. La lechuga en la Región de Murcia
y otras comunidades autónomas. https://acortar.link/lalechcugaenlaregiondemurciayo
trascomunidades (accessed 11.1.23).
González, R., Rosas, J.G., Blanco, D., Smith, R., Martínez, E.J., Pastor-Bueis, R., Gómez, X.,
2020. Anaerobic digestion of fourth range fruit and vegetable products: comparison of
three different scenarios for its valorisation by life cycle assessment and life cycle costing.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08521-w.
Gruda, N., Bisbis, M., Tanny, J., 2019. Influence of climate change on protected cultivation:
impacts and sustainable adaptation strategies - a review. J. Clean. Prod. 225, 481–495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.210.
Gustafsson, M., Svensson, N., Eklund, M., Oberg, J.D., 2021. Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas
emissions of heavy-duty transports: influence of electricity carbon intensity. Transp.
Res. Part D 93, 102757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102757.
Hamami, L., Nassereddine, B., 2020. Application of wireless sensor networks in the field of ir-
rigation: a review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 179, 105782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2020.105782.
Hamermesh, D.S., 2007. Time to eat: household production under increasing income inequality.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89, 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01012.x.
Hanserud, O.S., Cherubini, F., Øgaard, A.F., Müller, D.B., Brattebø, H., 2018. Choice of min-
eral fertilizer substitution principle strongly influences LCA environmental benefits of nu-
trient cycling in the agri-food system. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 219–227. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.215.
Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. SETAC.
IEA, 2020. Energy Technology Perspectives. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-
technology-perspectives-2020 (accessed 1.11.23).
14
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
ISO, 2012. ISO 14045 Environmental Managemet - Eco-efficiency Assessment of Product Sys-
tems - Principles, Requirements and Guidelines.
Jabs, J., Devine, C.M., 2006. Time scarcity and food choices: an overview. Appetite 47,
196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.014.
Lamnatou, C., Ezcurra-Ciaurriz, X., Chemisana, D., Plà-Aragonés, L.M., 2022. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) of a food-production system in Spain: Iberian ham based on an
extensive system. Sci. Total Environ. 808, 151900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2021.151900.
López-Gálvez, F., Rasines, L., Gómez, P.A., Artés-Hernández, F., Aguayo, E., 2021. Reusable
plastic crates (RPCs) for fresh produce (case study on cauliflowers): sustainable packaging
but potential salmonella survival and risk of cross-contamination. Foods 10, 1–17.
Lu, S., Yang, L., Liu, W., Jia, L., 2020. User preference for electronic commerce overpackaging
solutions : implications for cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 258, 120936. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120936.
MAPA, 2018. Informe del cosnumo alimentario en España. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/
alimentacion/temas/consumo-tendencias/20190807_informedeconsumo2018pdf_
tcm30-512256.pdf (accessed 12.29.22).
MAPA, 2021. Informe del consumo de alimentación en España 2020. https://www.mapa.
gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/consumo-tendencias/informe-anual-consumo-2020-v2-
nov2021-baja-res_tcm30-562704.pdf (accessed 1.2.23).
Martin-Gorriz, B., Gallego-Elvira, B., Martínez-Alvarez, V., Maestre-Valero, J.F., 2020. Life
cycle assessment of fruit and vegetable production in the region of Murcia (south-East
Spain) and evaluation of impact mitigation practices. J. Clean. Prod. 265, 121656.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121656.
Mckinnon, A., 2000. Sustainable distribution : opportunities to improve vehicle loading.
UNEP. https://acortar.link/lBZamp (accessed 11.1.23).
Miah, J.H., Koh, S.C.L., Stone, D., 2017. A hybridised framework combining integrated
methods for environmental life cycle assessment and life cycle costing. J. Clean. Prod.
168, 846–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.187.
MINHAP, 2021. Manual práctico sociedades 2021. https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/
Sede/Ayuda/21Manual/200.shtml (accessed 3.13.21).
MITECO, 2019. Generación y gestión de residuos de envases en españa, 2019. https://www.
miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/publicaciones/
tabladatosenvasesyresiduosdeenvases2019_tcm30-529105.pdf (accessed 11.7.20).
MITMA, 2021. Observatorio de costes del transporte de mercancias por carretera. https://
www.mitma.gob.es/transporte-terrestre/servicios-al-transportista/observatorios-del-
transporte/observatorios-del-transporte-de-mercancias-por-carretera/observatorios-
costes-transporte-mercancias (accessed 2.20.21).
Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J.E., Trolle, E., 2020. The climate and nutritional impact of beef in
different dietary patterns in Denmark. Foods 9, 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods9091176.
Poore, J., Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and
consumers. Science (80-.) 360, 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.
PRé Consultant, 2022. SimaPro 9.3.The Netherlands. https://simapro.com/ (assessed
10.02.2022).
Rasines, L., San Miguel, G., Molina-García, Á., Artés-Hernández, F., Hontoria, E., Aguayo, E.,
2023. Optimizing the environmental sustainability of alternative post-harvest scenarios
for fresh vegetables : a case study in Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 860, 160422. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160422.
Ravigné, E., Da Costa, P., 2021. Economic and environmental performances of natural gas for
heavy trucks: a case study on the french automotive industry supply chain. Energy Policy
149, 112019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112019.
Rebitzer, G., 2005. Enhancing the Application Efficiency of Life Cycle Assessment for Indus-
trial Uses. Swiss Fed. Inst. Technol., Lausanne, pp. 1–219 https://doi.org/10.1065/
lca2005.11.005 PhD thesis.
Rodger, J.-M., Kjaer, L.L., Pagoropoulos, A., 2018. Life cycle costing: an introduction. In:
Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I. (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment. Theory and
Practice. Springer Cham, pp. 373–400 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3.
Rothwell, A., Ridoutt, B., Page, G., Bellotti, W., 2016. Environmental performance of local
food: trade-offs and implications for climate resilience in a developed city. J. Clean.
Prod. 114, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.096.
San Miguel, G., Ruiz, D., 2021. Environmental sustainability of a pork and bean stew. Sci.
Total Environ. 798, 149203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149203.
Santos, L.de L.C.dos, Florindo, T.J., Rosa, A.P., Borges, A.C., Renato, N.dos S., 2022. Life cycle
assessment of dairy products: a case study of a dairy factory in Brazil. Sustainability 14,
9646. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159646.
Schau, E.M., Traverso, M., Lehmannann, A., Finkbeiner, M., 2011. Life cycle costing in sus-
tainability assessment-a case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability 3,
2268–2288. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3112268.
Schmidt Rivera, X.C., Azapagic, A., 2019. Life cycle environmental impacts of ready-made
meals considering different cuisines and recipes. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 1168–1181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.069.
Schmidt Rivera, X.C., Espinoza Orias, N., Azapagic, A., 2014. Life cycle environmental im-
pacts of convenience food: comparison of ready and home-made meals. J. Clean. Prod.
73, 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.008.
Sieti, N., Schmidt Rivera, X.C., Stamford, L., Azapagic, A., 2019. Environmental sustainability
assessment of ready-made baby foods: meals, menus and diets. Sci. Total Environ. 689,
899–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.363.
Stone, T.F., Thompson, J.R., Rosentrater, K.A., Nair, A., 2021. A life cycle assessment ap-
proach for vegetables in large-, mid-, and small-scale food systems in the midwest US.
Sustainability 13, 11368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011368.
Sundqvist-andberg, H., Åkerman, M., 2021. Sustainability governance and contested plastic
food packaging e an integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 306, 127111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127111.
Svanes, E., Johnsen, F.M., 2019. Environmental life cycle assessment of production, process-
ing, distribution and consumption of apples, sweet cherries and plums from conventional
L. Rasines et al.
agriculture in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 238, 117773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2019.117773.
USDA, 2021. FoodData Central. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html (accessed 10.1.21).
Vigil, M., Laza, M.P., Moran-Palacios, H., Cabal, J.V.A., 2020a. Optimizing the environmental
profile of fresh-cut produce: life cycle assessment of novel decontamination and sanita-
tion techniques. Sustainability 12, 3674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093674.
Vigil, M., Pedrosa-Laza, M., Alvarez Cabal, J.V., Ortega-Fernández, F., 2020b. Sustainability
analysis of active packaging for the fresh cut vegetable industry by means of attributional
& consequential life cycle assessment. Sustainability 12, 7207. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12177207.
15
Science of the Total Environment 872 (2023) 162169
Walker, S., Rothman, R., 2020. Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: a
review. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121158.
Zampori, L., Pant, R., 2019. Suggestions for updating the Organisation Environmental Foot-
print (OEF) method. JRC Technical Repports https://doi.org/10.2760/424613.
Zhen, H., Gao, W., Jia, L., Qiao, Y., Ju, X., 2020. Environmental and economic life cycle assess-
ment of alternative greenhouse vegetable production farms in peri-urban BeijingChina.
J. Clean. Prod. 269, 122380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122380.