Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

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

Determination of carbon footprint in the processing of frozen vegetables

using an online energy measurement system
Magdalena Wróbel-Jędrzejewska *, Elżbieta Polak
Prof. Waclaw Dabrowski Institute of Agriculture and Food Biotechnology – State Research Institute, Department of Refrigeration Technology and Technique in Lodz,
Poland

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

Keywords: The aim of the research was to determine the carbon footprint of frozen vegetable production based on the
Frozen vegetables developed and implemented measurement system of technological lines in an industrial plant. The system
Carbon footprint allowed measuring and recording the consumption of electricity and other energy media, production registration
Food production
and reporting. A methodology for determining the carbon footprint of vegetable production was proposed based
Sustainable energy management
on the analysis of the plant production technology. The CF analysis scope included transport of vegetable from
grower to plant, technological production process, internal transport and frozen storage. The lowest carbon
footprint was obtained for the production of frozen peas and the highest for frozen cauliflower stalks. Cooling
processes are the main component of CO2-eq emissions in frozen vegetable production and constitute on average
approx. 90% of emissions depending on the type of vegetable. Modification of the technological process should
be aimed at reducing energy consumption through, inter alia, the use of modern automated refrigeration systems.

1. Introduction
Changes in lifestyle, the variety and general availability of goods on
the market, competitive prices and the attractiveness of the commercial
offer have resulted in significant changes in the consumption behavior of
the society in recent years. We consume excessively, ineffectively and at
an accelerating pace not only food, but also depleting environmental
resources, which has a negative impact on global climate change (Cimini
and Moresi, 2017; Mustafa et al., 2021; Puigdueta et al., 2021; Reynolds
et al., 2019).
In Poland, the production of frozen fruit and vegetables has tripled in
recent years. Cauliflowers, broccoli, peas and beans dominate the pro­
duced assortment and 60% of them are exported. According to Nielsen
data (www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2018/), the frozen food
market in 2018 alone increased by 5.8% in terms of volume in tones, and
by 7.4% in value in PLN. This positive trend applies to all types of frozen
food. In turn, the data released by the GUS (Central Statistical Office in
Poland) showed that the production of frozen fruit in June and July
2018 increased by 24%–198 thousand tones. The demand for frozen
vegetables in the 2018/19 season in Poland amounted to 1.3 million
tons (GUS, 2019). This is because the number of health- and
diet-conscious consumers increases every year, mainly due to the fast
pace of life. Nevertheless, the Polish consumer consumes less frozen food
products annually (4–6 kg) compared to EU leaders (Denmark – 30 kg,
Germany – 40 kg). Economic growth, reflected by most macroeconomic
indicators is a positive impulse for further consumption growth (Abdella
et al., 2020; Green et al., 2020).
In the 2018/19 season, Poland maintained its position as the third
largest producer of frozen vegetables in the EU (after Belgium and
Spain). Exports are dominated by frozen strawberries, raspberries, cur­
rants, cherries and cauliflowers, broccoli, carrots, onions, tomatoes and
frozen vegetable mixes. As a result of high demand on foreign markets,
the export share in the production of frozen vegetables amounted to
67%. The largest recipients of Polish frozen fruit and vegetable products
are: Germany, France, Belgium and the United Kingdom, and Belarus,
the USA and Norway from non-EU countries (Bugala, 2019; Sandström
et al., 2018).
The result of such intensive development is high CO2-eq emission into
the atmosphere. Emissions resulting from food waste are those associ­
ated with the production of food that is subsequently wasted, as well as
those that arise from the waste disposal processes. Policies should
implement technological and behavioral changes tailored to the eco­
nomic, cultural and technological conditions in each country (Dorward,
2012). Food production, especially the technology of cooling and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: magdalena.jedrzejewska@ibprs.pl (M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2022.110974
Received 22 September 2021; Received in revised form 15 December 2021; Accepted 16 January 2022
Available online 24 January 2022
0260-8774/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak
freezing vegetables and fruits, is very energy-intensive and is a major
source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Measures taken so far to
reduce GHG have concerned, for example, boiler replacements, thermal
modernization of buildings or the use of renewable energy sources
(RES). The development of sustainable food freezing technologies
should be pursued taking into account the role of the carbon footprint
(CF) in this process. So far, there is a lack of comprehensive and systemic
measures for the transition to new low-emission technologies in food
production using methods of CO2-eq (emitted to the environment)
calculation that would enable the identification of areas that could
reduce the CF (Cimini and Moresi, 2018). By introducing more effective
methods and technologies, it will be possible to significantly reduce
CO2-eq emissions to the atmosphere (Clune et al., 2017; Daviesa et al.,
2012). The environmental impact of the production and consumption of
food have been rarely communicated to consumers. The footprint of
food products provides consumers with the opportunity to compare
environmental impacts across and within product groups (Leach et al.,
2016).
The development of a new method for calculating the carbon foot­
print and a comprehensive expert system for food products will open up
opportunities for all producers. Currently, there is no one-size-fits-all
solution on the market that could be used to calculate the CF for pro­
duction and distribution environments (Almena et al., 2020). Therefore,
changes in food technologies, especially in the frozen food segment, are
slow in the context of climate change. Available CF calculators are based
on simplified household or small business estimates (e.g. Carbon Foot­
print Ltd. - www.carbonfootprint.com; University of California, Berke­
ley - www.coolclimate.berkeley.edu; Nature Conservation - www.
nature. org, US EPA - www.epa.gov). The nature of these solutions il­
lustrates the problem and raises awareness, rather than providing a tool
to deal with business matters. There is no one-size-fits-all approach,
although some guidance can be found in the ISO 14064-9 standard on
greenhouse gas emissions or in the European Commission’s guidance
document “Developing guidelines for the projection of greenhouse
gases” (Commission Implementing Regulation, 2018). With climate
change and population growth, pathways to reduce the environmental
footprint of food production are increasingly sought (Barbosa, 2021;
Bortolini et al., 2016; Gaffney et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2009).
There have also been several attempts in the literature to calculate
environmental footprints using mathematical modeling (Corradini et al.,
2019), although these deterministic and stochastic models still require
extensive knowledge and business practice to interpret the results ac­
cording to the parameters used (Kuempel et al., 2020). On the other
hand, there is a lack of reliable data related to the direct production and
storage of agri-food products (Garofalo et al., 2017; Kanter et al., 2016;
Pasqualino et al., 2011; Roy et al., 2009).
As the demand for frozen food increases, so does the impact of its
production processes on the greenhouse effect. In this economic sector,
energy consumption for production and transport (Pandey et al., 2014),
as well as the type of packaging, are the most important factors shaping
the carbon footprint (Cerutti et al., 2016). Therefore, the CF value of a
given product is the result of interactions related to the links in the
production chain (Borsato et al., 2018; Wojdalski et al., 2015; Zhou
et al., 2017). Moreover, food losses contribute to the increase in the
greenhouse effect and food scarcity in countries around the world. They
have received increased attention in the past decade, especially after the
2007–2008 food crisis, which has rekindled the debate on global food
availability. This has highlighted the need to reduce harvest and
post-harvest losses in the most vulnerable low- and middle-income
countries (Fabi et al., 2021).
The production of 1 kWh of electricity releases approximately 719 g
of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (KOBiZE, 2020). Food processing
plants are distinguished by high energy consumption during production,
amounting to 8% of total industrial energy consumption. There is a
tendency to label products in a way that indicates the amount of carbon
dioxide emissions to the atmosphere by means of the product’s carbon
2
Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974
footprint (CF) (Röös, 2013). The CF is a tool of sustainable development
policy and aims to draw the consumer’s attention to the issue of envi­
ronmental protection and convince food producers to develop products
with a lower impact of production processes on the ecosystem (Pandey
et al., 2014). Current agricultural practices are also being modified and
new food production methods are being sought to reduce the CF index
value (Borsato et al., 2018). Encouraging consumers to shift their diets
towards a lower meat/lower calorie alternatives has been the focus of
food and health policies across the world. The economic impacts of such
changes on regions have been less widely examined, but they are likely
to be significant, especially where agricultural and food production
activities are important to the region (Allan et al., 2019). Information
regarding the carbon footprint should be included on product labels.
This would provide consumers with the opportunity to make informed
choices, especially within food product categories and negate the need
for retailers to depend on the demand side of the supply chain to achieve
carbon reduction targets (Gadema and Oglethorpe, 2011). Many studies
have investigated the relationship between consumer motivation, un­
derstanding and use of sustainability labels on food products (both
environmental and ethical labels) that are increasingly appearing on
food products (Grunert et al., 2014). Gaining information concerning
the impact on climate change affects human values and confidence in
the declared preferences for food labeled with environmental footprints
(Grebitus et al., 2015).
The aim of the publication was to fill the gap – the lack of reliable
data related to CF production and storage of agri-food products – based
on the developed and implemented innovative system for measuring
technological lines in a Polish company, including a system for
measuring and recording the consumption of electricity and other en­
ergy media, production registration and reporting, including carbon
footprint determination. This system enables the collection of the actual
data necessary to calculate the carbon footprint of selected products
(spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, peas, beans and onions). CF components
were also analyzed in terms of indicating the possibility of reducing the
CF of these products. An additional advantage of the designed
measuring system is the possibility of remote access to the measured
parameters of energy consumption. This has the potential for real-time
monitoring, control and optimization.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Scope of research
A methodology for determining the carbon footprint of agri-food
products has been proposed based on the analysis of production tech­
nology of vegetable-based products. The following steps were included
in the CF analysis: the scope of the analysis was defined, the test
boundaries were determined, the balance analysis and emission assess­
ments were performed within the specified scope. The CF analysis of the
frozen vegetables was carried out on a field-to-gate basis considering all
direct and indirect emissions. The mass unit of vegetable raw material
was adopted as CF unit for [kg CO2-eq/kg vegetables] analysis.
The detailed scope of carbon footprint analysis for the production of
frozen products in an industrial plant (Unifreeze Sp. z o.o.) included the
following processes: transport of each vegetable from the grower to the
plant, production of frozen vegetables (i.e. technological process and
internal transport) and frozen storage. The plant was equipped with
three technological lines, marked in the system as line 1 – “tunnel
SMALL”, line 2 – “tunnel BIG”, line 3 – “tunnel GYRO“. Depending on the
assortment produced, each line can be configured differently in terms of
technological devices. The metering system of the technological line was
equipped with 22 sensors, which allowed to separate the entire pro­
duction process into stages and to link relevant data. For CF analysis of
individual frozen vegetables, the following were determined based on
the measurement system:
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak
‒ mass balance for each of the products,
‒ mass and characteristics of the burnt coal (e.g. based on lading bills
or taking representative samples and subjecting them to laboratory
analysis, including determination of carbon content and calorific
value),
‒ total consumption of liquefied LPG for propulsion of internal trans­
port vehicles,
‒ CO2-eq emission factor values from LPG combustion,
‒ total electricity consumption for production at Unifreeze (in the first
iteration of CF analysis, indirect emissions related to electricity
consumption can be allocated between individual products).
2.2. Data analysis
Due to the adopted methodology, it was necessary to build a data­
base. The values of the CO2 emission index from LPG combustion were
obtained from the KOBiZE data (National Center for Emissions Man­
agement) (KOBiZE, 2020) (Table A1) or the DEFRA databases (Depart­
ment for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) (DEFRA, 2017) (Table A2).
2.2.1. Production monitoring system
In order to determine the CF of the current production, a concept for
measuring electricity consumption in the plant and a system for the
acquisition and archiving of production data were developed. This sys­
tem was intended to serve as a database for calculating CO2-eq emissions
and linking them to the actual frozen assortment production. Taking into
account the capabilities of the plant’s infrastructure and diagrams of
unit steps in the frozen vegetables production, the metering structure
was planned as follows: it was found based on the analysis of all 75
energy consumption points that they should be grouped to reduce the
Fig. 1. Diagram of electricity consumption measurement points.
3
Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974
number of measurement points. Electricity data collection was planned
in 22 selected points (Table A3), which resulted from the plant’s infra­
structure, e.g. from the arrangement of devices in two production halls,
on the ramp and production organization. The diagram of electricity
metering in the plant was presented in Fig. 1. The following works were
carried out to prepare the system for data collection: electricity con­
sumption points were measured, energy meters were connected to the
data acquisition system, a data acquisition system was developed and
remote access to the system was established.
Measurement data from electricity meters (Tab. A3) were sent to the
data acquisition system, which enabled: real-time archiving of elec­
tricity measurements, product assortment management (e.g. adding new
products), entering and archiving stock data (by specifying what prod­
uct is stored in a given refrigerating chamber), the time intervals for
introducing and removing products from the chambers, registration and
archiving of production data.
Due to the inability to separate electricity measurements into indi­
vidual elements of the cooling system (cooling tunnels, cooling cham­
bers), a separated system was planned that recorded the sum of energy
consumption for all cooling cycles (measurement 15 – compressor No. 1
with cooling devices for ammonia installation and cooling chambers
1–4; measurement 16 – compressor No. 2 and reciprocating compressors
No. 3 and 4 with cooling devices for ammonia installations; measure­
ment 17 – compressor No. 4; measurement 18 – compressor No. 5;
measurement 19 – cooling chamber No. 5; measurement 20 – cooling
chamber No. 6 with cooling devices for freon installation) (Fig. 1). The
installed data acquisition system consisted of: a controller cabinet
reading data from meters (data concentrator), a virtual machine with
software, SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) software
for data acquisition, aggregation, processing, visualization and
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak
reporting, as well as an access terminal. This program enables:
‒ data acquisition from the control system and network analyzers, as
well as production information entered on the terminal,
‒ structuring and saving data to an efficient industrial database,
‒ visualization and preview of the current status of energy consump­
tion and other production statuses,
‒ reporting (both independent and building dedicated reports).
The production diagrams of frozen vegetables were developed, tak­
ing into account the equipment used in terms of their impact on direct
and indirect emissions in order to determine the scope of the carbon
footprint research analysis at individual stages of the technological
process. Assumptions were made regarding the method of dividing
Fig. 2. Diagram of unit steps in the spinach production, including devices.
4
Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974
energy into unit processes. Fig. 2 shows an exemplary diagram of the
frozen spinach production with the devices involved in these processes.
2.3. Registration and reporting system
A technological lines measurement system with many functional
features was developed and implemented. It allowed to measure energy
consumption online with a division into individual plant elements
(defined measuring points). In addition, it ensured the registration and
processing of basic parameter data, including:
‒ sum of energy consumption for each production line over a specific
period of time for the amount and type of product produced,
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak
‒ sum of energy consumption for the entire production of a given
assortment over a specific period of time,
‒ sum of energy consumption for cooling chambers with regard to the
assortment division in a specific storage time,
‒ annual sum of the production for the entire plant,
‒ production structure by the type of product produced at the same
time,
‒ sum of energy consumption for the entire plant at the same time.
It was possible to calculate the carbon footprint based on the amount
of energy consumption derived from the entered data and the relation­
ships determined between them. Additional functions of the system
were: production identification in reports (due to the fact that 3 pro­
duction lines could operate simultaneously), entering information on
goods delivery source – to determine the impact of transport (parame­
ters: transport type, delivery date, number of km) and register energy
carriers (quarterly): hard coal, unleaded petrol, diesel oil, LPG, heat in
steam and hot water. The system also included functions that were
responsible for the verification of the entered production data (e.g.
whether all the data from the subsequent stages of the technological
process had been entered).
Data on energy consumption from individual measuring points were
recorded at 5-min intervals. It was possible to save online energy con­
sumption data as a data dump (raw) to a CSV file. The system enabled
the visualization of all parameters and calculations. Thanks to a separate
reporting system, it was possible to generate reports on energy con­
sumption from the entire production chain or select a specific assort­
ment or time period. The metering system developed in this way,
together with generating reports with specified additional parameters
(such as the amount of a given assortment, amount of raw material or
waste), ultimately allowed to calculate the carbon footprint depending
on the variable base parameters.
2.3.1. Production data registration system
A database was created, called the production data registration
system, for the purpose of calculating the carbon footprint of individual
frozen products in the conditions of actual production, along with the
registration of its size and the number of production cycles. The data­
base was divided into the following tabs: definitions, measurements,
deliveries, preparation, production, packaging and chambers. In order
to register and assign data in this system, it was necessary to define the
raw materials, type of assortment produced, packaging (e.g. bag, card­
board), type of external transport (e.g. isotherm, cold store) and internal
transport (e.g. electric, petrol truck) and production equipment (e.g.
tape, feeder). Recording production data was necessary to determine the
true carbon footprint and included raw material receipt, line prepara­
tion, line production, packaging and storage.
2.3.2. Reporting system
Reports were created on the basis of the data entered into the data­
base. Fig. A1 shows an exemplary report obtained from the technolog­
ical line measurement system, containing production data and carbon
footprint for the production of frozen spinach. The data in the report
were divided into information on: production process identification
(process number, start date and time, production end), amount and type
of raw material, amount of waste, delivery parameters and quantity and
type of assortment. The following stages were specified in the produc­
tion process of frozen assortment: preparation of the production line and
production process. The production process in the report was divided
into stages labeled as: unloading ramp, pre-tunnel process, tunnel pro­
duction, post-tunnel processes and storage. Electricity values were
assigned to individual stages and converted into the amount of emitted
CO2-eq. The report ended with a table showing total electricity con­
sumption and carbon footprint value for a unit production process.
5
Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974
2.4. Scope of frozen vegetables production
The carbon footprint of the production of frozen vegetables (onion,
broccoli, cauliflower, beans, spinach, peas) was determined on the basis
of the recorded instantaneous and total electricity consumption in the
production plant (Table A4) and the current registration of the pro­
duction processes. The following were analyzed in 2020 to calculate the
CF: 24 production batches of frozen broccoli, 15 of frozen peas, 10 of
frozen beans, 32 of frozen cauliflower, 75 of frozen onions and 48 of
frozen spinach. The carbon footprint associated with the production of
the frozen product was experimentally determined based on the data
concerning raw material supply, raw material preparation, production
and internal transport.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Carbon footprint of frozen vegetables
A sample report obtained from the metering system included pro­
duction data (ID 349) and carbon footprint calculations for frozen
cauliflower production from nine batches of raw material, i.e. 34,603 kg
(in October 2020). The technological process in the metering system was
divided into the following stages: pre-cooling in the cold room,
unloading ramp, combined processes in front of the tunnel, freezing in
the tunnel, combined processes behind the tunnel (sorting and pack­
aging) and storage. These processes involved Jorgensen blancher, Mega
blancher, metal detector, drum calibrator, wrapper, washer, feeder, in­
spection table, Jorgensen blancher vibrating table and belt conveyor. A
low carbon footprint was obtained for frozen cauliflower production,
with a value of approximately 0.12 kg CO2-eq per kg product. Table A5
shows the monthly production data and carbon footprint calculations of
cauliflower production in September 2020. The carbon footprint values
ranged from 0.05 to 0.14 kg CO2-eq/kg product, and the average CF
value was 0.10 kg CO2-eq/kg frozen cauliflower. Analogous analyses
were carried out for all months and frozen vegetables produced.
Table A6 shows the average annual carbon footprint values for the
production of all tested frozen vegetables. The determined average
carbon footprint values of the produced assortment were: spinach –
0.125 kg CO2-eq/kg product, cauliflower – 0.173 kg CO2-eq/kg product,
cauliflower stalk – 0.403 CO2-eq/kg product, broccoli – 0.207 kg CO2-eq/
kg product, broccoli stalk – 0.173 kg CO2-eq/kg product, peas – 0.110 kg
CO2-eq/kg product, beans – 0.305 kg CO2-eq/kg product and onions –
0.0.216 kg CO2-eq/kg product. The lowest carbon footprint was obtained
for the production of frozen peas, which resulted from its technology
and production organization, and the highest was recorded for frozen
cauliflower stalk. After analyzing unit production stages of all frozen
vegetables, it was found that pea production had the fewest steps (short
production process) and the mildest conditions, such as the lowest
temperature and blanching time, which realistically translated into the
lowest carbon footprint. These results are particularly relevant in view
of the EU’s planned food labeling with CF. There are no reports in the
literature relating to CF of frozen vegetables. According to the literature
data, the CF of production of other food products, i.e. strawberry paste
2.47 kg CO2-eq/kg product, croissants 1.5 kg CO2-eq/kg product, cheese
9.88 kg CO2-eq/kg product (Wróbel-Jędrzejewska et al., 2016), Sardinian
white wine 1.01 kg CO2-eq/1 bottle (750 ml) (Styles et al., 2014), coffee
0.341 kg CO2-eq/kg green bean (Pramulya et al., 2019) and Canadian
milk 0.304 kg CO2-eq/kg milk (Misganaw et al., 2020). So, frozen veg­
etables production, when compared to other productions, was low en­
ergy consuming process. These are tangible environmental benefits
associated with green products, reduced resource consumption,
improved environmental performance, implementation of
pro-environmental solutions, or benefits to businesses from the intro­
duction of sustainable production principles (Borsato et al., 2018; Gar­
nett, 2008). Consumers often choose, more consciously and willingly,
food products that meet environmental requirements. Purchases of
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974

products with labels containing so-called eco-labels, i.e. information on percentage in the production process was identified for the freezing
their environmental impact, are systematically increasing (Dąbrowska stage in the freezing tunnel; it ranged from 58.52% (for spinach) to
and Babicz-Zielińska, 2011; Wiedmann and Minx, 2008; Dong et al., 95.32% (for beans). Calibration and packaging (post-tunnel processes)
2013). was the stage with the lowest emission impact (0.04–0.81%) in the
production of frozen vegetables. It was also found that the shares of CO2-
eq emissions differed from the others for frozen spinach production:
3.2. Analysis of the possibility of reducing the carbon footprint
unloading ramp – 26.89%, pre-tunnel processes – 13.76%, tunnel pro­
duction – 58.52%. This was most likely due to the fact that the pro­
An analysis of carbon footprint reduction potential was performed
duction of frozen spinach had a specific technology that differed
based on the CO2-eq emission data assigned to specific unit processes.
significantly from other analyzed frozen vegetables, e.g. pre-treatment
The following stages were specified in the entire process of frozen
and washing was carried out on the ramp. Cooling processes (pre-
vegetable production in the plant: delivery, preparation of raw mate­
cooling, tunnel freezing and freezing storage) were the main component
rials, production, internal transport, while the production itself
of CO2-eq emissions in the production of frozen vegetables and accounted
included: unloading ramp, pre-cooling, processes in front of the tunnel
for on average over 90% of emissions, depending on the type of
(pre-tunnel processes), freezing (production tunnel) and processes
vegetable.
behind the tunnel (post-tunnel processes).
Reducing the carbon footprint (reducing greenhouse gas emissions)
For cauliflower, production had the largest proportion in CO2-eq
of the entire production process of frozen vegetables is possible through
emissions (approx. 77%) in the entire production process. (Fig. 3, dia­
its modification. This applies in particular to the freezing process (pre-
gram 1). The contribution of delivery (external transport) and internal
cooling and tunnel production) as well as to freezing storage. Therefore,
transport in the total CF of cauliflower production was 21% and 0.04%,
the storage process was also analyzed with the use of the implemented
respectively, while the absolute CF value of these steps was 0.03 kg CO2-
measuring system for the plant technological lines. The CFs were only
eq/kg product. On the other hand, the freezing process (tunnel) and pre-
compared for the production of frozen broccoli, determined at different
cooling constituted the largest percentage in the production (Fig. 3,
times (Table A7). This allowed to calculate CO2-eq emissions associated
diagram 2), i.e. approximately 88% and 11%, respectively, thus the
with 6-week freezer storage of this product. This emission was as high as
cooling process accounted for as much as 99%.
4350 kg, which was approx. 75% of the carbon footprint of frozen
Analogous considerations were carried out for the remaining frozen
broccoli production. Thus, the impact of storage time (freezer storage)
vegetables, and the results are presented in diagrams (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
on the carbon footprint value is very large. This value will increase with
The production stage constituted the highest proportion of CO2-eq
the duration and season of the storage process. The research will be
emissions in the entire process of producing a frozen product (Fig. 4);
continued in the coming years by further monitoring energy consump­
they ranged from 77.30% to 95.73%, depending on the type of frozen
tion until the actual transfer of the product from the freezing storage
vegetable. The highest percentage of CO2-eq emissions in the production
chamber to the customer. The system enables the analysis of production
stage was recorded for frozen beans, and the lowest for frozen cauli­
in different periods. This system is universal, which allows to introduce
flower. The percentage of external transport (delivery) and internal
certain modifications to the implemented measurement system with
transport ranged from 4.20% to 21.31% and from 0.03% to 0.06%,
reporting system and adapt it to other technological lines in the agri-
respectively, and the highest was found for cauliflower. For all the
food to reliably determine the carbon footprint and take steps towards
analyzed productions, a low contribution of CO2-eq emissions was
its effective reduction.
observed at the preparation stage for production, ranging from 0.05% to
It was found on the basis of the measurement results that freezing in
1.35%, depending on the assortment. It was concluded that the carbon
the tunnel and freezing storage were the main components of CO2-eq
footprint of the entire frozen vegetable production process could be
emissions in the production of frozen vegetables at Unifreeze. Modifi­
reduced by shortening the supply chain and modifying the production
cation of the technological process should be aimed at reducing energy
process.
consumption, e.g. the use of modern automated refrigeration systems.
The contribution to CO2-eq emissions of individual frozen vegetables
Possibilities of lowering the carbon footprint were found in the areas
was also analyzed for production stages (unloading ramp, pre-cooling,
of raw material transport to the plant, production process and especially
pre-tunnel processes, tunnel production [freezing] and post-tunnel
its freezing and maintaining the appropriate temperature in the freezer
processes). The production technology of frozen bean, spinach and
during storage.
peas did not require the pre-cooling stage. However, the share of CO2-eq
emissions was below 1% in the unit stage, i.e. initial processing of
4. Conclusions
vegetables (unloading ramp), in the production of onions, broccoli and
cauliflower, which made it impossible to show this value in the diagram
The carbon footprint analysis was carried out at individual stages of
(Fig. 5). The same applied to the cleaning, selection and blanching (pre-
the technological process of frozen vegetable production at the
tunnel processes) steps in pea production. The highest emission

Fig. 3. Contribution to CO2-eq emissions (%) of individual unit stages in frozen cauliflower production (diagram 1 – the entire process of frozen product production,
diagram 2 – production).

6
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak
Fig. 4. Contribution to CO2-eq emissions of individual unit stages in the production of frozen vegetables in the entire process of producing a frozen product.
Fig. 5. Contribution to CO2-eq emissions of individual unit stages in the production of frozen vegetables – production stages only.
Unifreeze plant. The process line measurement system, equipped with
22 sensors, allowed to separate the entire production process into stages
and subsequently to utilize relevant data for CF analysis. Measurement
of the plant’s consumption of electricity and other energy media, as well
as the system for acquisition and archiving of production and transport
data, served as the database for calculating the carbon footprint for each
of the frozen assortments. Forms were developed to enable the data
entry necessary to calculate the carbon footprint in real time. Report
generation and software visualization work was also performed. The
correctness of operation of the electricity measurement system in all
measuring points of technological lines was verified in connection with
the current production data. Necessary modifications were introduced in
the technological line metering system, production registration and
reporting. An innovative energy consumption monitoring system was
implemented, whose application allowed to calculate the carbon foot­
print for each product. The production plant measurement system is
universal, which makes it possible to introduce certain modifications to
the implemented measurement system along with the reporting system
and adapt it to other technological lines in the agri-food industry in
order to reliably determine the carbon footprint and take steps towards
its effective reduction.
7
Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974
An additional advantage of the designed measuring system is the
possibility of remote access to the measured parameters of energy con­
sumption. This has the potential for real-time monitoring, control and
optimization.
The determined average carbon footprint values of the produced
assortment were in the range of 0.110 kg CO2-eq/kg product - 0.403 kg
CO2-eq/kg product, The lowest carbon footprint was obtained for the
production of frozen peas, and the highest for frozen cauliflower stalks.
In this work, not only the CF of frozen vegetables was studied, but
also the monitoring system of process lines. This system was designed
and manufactured as part of the Project, it is a kind of new solution
because there is no similar one in other factories that performs the same
functions. Data from the monitoring system contribute to product la­
beling, which will soon be obligatory (according to EU guidelines). The
production process had the largest share of emissions in the entire
production of the frozen product, while the freezing stage in the freezing
tunnel contributed the most in the production process. It ranged from
58.52% for spinach to 95.32% for beans. The “post-tunnel process” was
the stage in frozen vegetable production with the lowest emission
impact (0.04–0.81%).
Shortening raw material delivery distances and optimization of
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974

cooling installations (pre-cooling chambers, freezing tunnels, storage interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
chambers), as well as the modification of technology in order to reduce the work reported in this paper.
energy consumption of production processes, represent a real opportu­
nity to reduce the carbon footprint of frozen vegetable production. Acknowledgement

Credit author statement
Magdalena Wróbel-Jędrzejewska: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation,
Software, Visualization Validation, Funding acquisition, Writing – re­
view & editing; Elżbieta Polak: Supervision, Resources, Funding acqui­
sition, Writing – review & editing, Project administration.
This work was founded by the National Center for Research and
Development, as part of the III BIOSTRATEG. “The development of an
innovative carbon footprint calculation method for the basic basket of
food products” – task in the project “Development of healthy food pro­
duction technologies taking into consideration nutritious food waste
management and carbon footprint calculation methodology” BIO­
STRATEG3/343817/17/NCBR/2018.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

APPENDIX A

Fig. A1. CF report for the production of one batch of raw material – spinach.

Table A1
Values of unit indicators of CO2-eq emissions of selected energy media and raw materials (KOBiZE, 2020).

Media name GUS code Unit CF[kg CO2-eq/unit] CF[kg CO2-eq/GJ]

Hard coal 060 Mg 2348 94.54

Unleaded motor gasoline 088 Mg 3083 69.30
Gas oils for engines 064 Mg 3177 77.40
Liquefied gas LPG 012 Mg 2954 63.10
Electricity 024 MWh 719a –
Heat in steam 023 GJ 63.5 63.50

8
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974

a
value changing dynamically depending on the composition of the energy mix at a given moment (the value given in the table is the average for
the period September–October 2020).
Table A2
The values CF of selected energy media and raw materials (DEFRA, 2017).

Media name Unit CF

kg CO2-eq kg CO2 kga CH4 kga N2O

Hard coal Mg 2417 2396 6 15

MWh 339 337 1 2
Unleaded motor gasoline Mg 3225 3214 4 7
MWh 285 284 0 1
Gas oils for engines (with biocomponents) Mg 3108 3082 1 25
MWh 262 259 0 3
Liquefied gas LPG Mg 2941 2935 3 3
MWh 231 229 1 1
a
values converted into CO2 equivalent emissions.

Table A3
Measurement points of the production measurement system.

Location of the measuring point Measuring point

Energy consumed by the entire plant Transformer main 1

Transformer 1 in switchboard main 21
Transformer 2 in switchboard main 22
Transformer for compressor No. 4 (GRASSO) 18
Transformer for compressor No. 5 (GRASSO) 19
Pea and bean string on the ramp 2
String of spinach on the ramp 3
Dynamic cooling chamber 4
Cooling line “tunnel SMALL" Equipment in front of tunnel cooling 5
Tunnel cooling 6
Equipment behind tunnel cooling 7
Cooling line “tunnel LARGE" Equipment in front of tunnel cooling 8
Tunnel 9
Equipment behind tunnel cooling 10
Cooling line “tunnel GYRO" Equipment in front of tunnel cooling 11
Tunnel 12
Equipment behind tunnel cooling 13
Packer 14
Total electric energy consumed by the cooling system Compressor No. 1 (GRAM) 15
Cooling chambers 1-4
Cooling devices for ammonia installation
Compressor No. 2 (GRAM) 16
Reciprocating compressors No. 3 and 4
Cooling devices for ammonia installation
pakowaczkę nr 1 17
Cooling chamber No. 5
pakowaczkę nr 1 18
Transformer for compressor No. 4 (GRASSO)
sumaryczną energię elektryczną pobrana przez układ chłodniczy 19
Transformer for compressor No. 5 (GRASSO)
Cooling chamber No. 6 20
PAKOWACZKĘ NR 1
Cooling devices for the installation of freon

Table A4
Registration of energy sensors readings in the production plant.

Sensor No. Gauge indication [kWh] Measurement point Sensor No. Gauge indication [kWh] Measurement point

P01 0.0000 Switchboard NN P12 0.0000 Tunnel 3 Gyro

P02 0.1389 Pea and bean ramp for Line 2 P13 0.0000 Equipment behind the tunnel 3
P03 0.4299 Ramp-string of spinach P14 0.0000 Packer
P04 6.4984 Dynamic cooling chamber P15 211.2784 Cooling chambers 4
P05 8.5299 Equipment in front of the tunnel 1 P16 0.1967 Piston compressors, Compressor No. 2
P06 61.5709 Tunnel 1 Small P17 18.3354 Cooling chambers 5
P07 1.0104 Equipment behind the tunnel 1 P18 362.2394 Compressor 4
P08 2.2304 Equipment in front of the tunnel 2 P19 184.2499 Compressor 5
P09 69.1188 Tunnel 2 Big P20 0.0000 Cooling chambers 6
P10 0.8164 Equipment behind the tunnel 2 P21 330.6394 RG measurement 21
P11 0.1225 Equipment in front of the tunnel 3 P22 218.2263 RG measurement 22

9
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974

Table A5
Report on CF production (not including storage) of cauliflower in September 2020.

Time of Mass production Deliver Preparation for Internal Production Production CF calculation
production balance production transport

Start Stop Raw Product CO2-eq Amount of CO2-eq CO2-eq Amount of CO2-eq Sum of Sum of CO2- CF kg CO2-
date date material [kg] [kg] energy [kg] [kg] energy [kW] [kg] energy eq [kg] eq/kg
[kg] [kW] [kW] product

09.09 09.09 31,640 30,130 926.60 53.64 41.30 1.58 754.94 581.31 808.58 1550.79 0.05
10.09 11.09 25,672 25,060 840.20 67.84 52.23 1.29 3413.82 2628.65 3481.66 3522.37 0.14
11.09 12.09 21,547 21,120 762.40 59.83 46.07 1.08 1916.65 1475.82 1976.48 2285.37 0.11
16.09 17.09 78,066 76,400 2065.20 66.27 51.02 3.9 3670.99 2826.67 3737.25 4946.79 0.07
18.09 19.09 54,659 54,330 1034.60 66.11 50.91 2.73 6114.70 4708.3 6180.81 5796.54 0.11
22.09 22.09 94,295 89,260 2346.20 60.91 46.89 4.72 10,772.17 8294.56 10,833.07 10,692.37 0.12
23.09 25.09 53,819 50,540 747.20 74.23 57.16 2.69 5292.03 4074.87 5366.26 4881.92 0.10
25.09 26.09 53,808 49,820 1048.40 81.80 62.99 2.69 5509.48 4242.29 5591.27 5356.37 0.11
26.09 26.09 26,938 25,760 485.80 44.77 34.47 1.35 3557.69 2739.42 3602.46 3261.04 0.13
Sum 440,44 422,420 10,256.6 575.38 443.04 22.03 41,002.47 31,571.89 41,577.85 42,293.56 -
Average - - - - - - - - - - 0.10

Table A6
Carbon footprint CF (kg CO2-eq/kg of product) of the production of frozen vegetables (including storage) in 2020.

Month Spinach Cauliflower Cauliflower stalk Broccoli Broccoli stalk Peas Bean Onion

Number of CF Number of CF Number of CF Number of CF Number of CF Number of CF Number of CF Number of CF

processes processes processes processes processes processes processes processes

February 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 14 0.61
March 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 15 0.14
April 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 10 0.08
May 11 0.15 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 12 0.09
June 21 0.12 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 4 0.16
July 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 15 0.11 0 – 1 0.14
August 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 6 0.19 0 –
September 3 0.1 9 0.16 2 0.44 4 0.27 2 0.18 0 – 4 0.42 1 0.07
October 13 0.13 17 0.09 4 0.29 16 0.1 4 0.12 0 – 0 – 1 0.49
November 0 – 6 0.27 3 0.48 4 0.25 5 0.22 0 – 0 – 17 0.16
Sum 48 - 32 - 9 - 24 - 11 - 15 - 10 - 75 -
Average - 0.125 - 0.173 - 0.403 - 0.207 - 0.173 - 0.110 - 0.305 - 0.216

Table A7
Effect of storage time on CF of frozen broccoli production (without transport and preparation).

Date Storage time Amount of energy [kW] CO2-eq [kg] CO2-eq related to storage [kg] CF kg CO2-eq/kg product

November 06, 2020 0 days 1853.284 1417.76 0 0.120

November 17, 2020 11 days 2353.828 1800.68 383 0.153
December 17, 2020 41 days 7539.859 5767.99 4350 0.489

References Cerutti, A.K., Contu, S., Ardente, F., Donno, D., Beccaro, G.L., 2016. Carbon footprint in
green public procurement: policy evaluation from a case study in the food sector.
Food Pol. 58, 82–93.
Abdella, G.M., Kucukvar, M., Onat, N.C., Al-Yafay, H.M., Bulak, M.E., 2020.
Cimini, A., Moresi, M., 2017. Energy efficiency and carbon footprint of home pasta
Sustainability assessment and modeling based on supervised machine learning
cooking appliances. J. Food Eng. 204, 8–17.
techniques: the case for food consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119661.
Cimini, A., Moresi, M., 2018. Mitigation measures to minimize the cradle-to-grave beer
Allan, G., Comerford, D., McGregor, P., 2019. The system-wide impact of healthy eating:
carbon footprint as related to the brewery size and primary packaging material.
assessing emissions and economic impacts at the regional level. Food Pol. 86,
J. Food Eng. 236, 1–8.
101725.
Clune, S., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2017. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions
Almena, A., Fryer, P.J., Bakalis, S., Lopez-Quirogaa, E., 2020. Local and decentralised
for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 766–783.
scenarios for ice-cream manufacture: a model-based assessment at different
Commission Implementing Regulation, 2018. EU 2018/2066 of 19 December 2018 on
production scales. J. Food Eng. 286, 110099.
the Monitoring and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to Directive
Barbosa, M.W., 2021. Uncovering research streams on agri-food supply chain
2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Amending
management: a bibliometric study. Global Food Security 28, 100517.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012.
Bortolini, M., Faccio, M., Ferrari, E., Gamberi, M., Pilati, F., 2016. Fresh food sustainable
Corradini, G., Pierobon, F., Zanetti, M., 2019. Product environmental footprint of a cross-
distribution: cost, delivery time and carbon footprint three-objective optimization.
laminated timber system: a case study in Italy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 975–988.
J. Food Eng. 174, 56–67.
Daviesa, G.F., Mana, C.M.D., Andrewsa, S.D., Paurinea, A., Hutchinsb, M.G.,
Borsato, E., Tarolli, P., Marinello, F., 2018. Sustainable patterns of main agricultural
Maidmenta, G.G., 2012. Potential life cycle carbon savings with low emissivity
products combining different footprint parameters. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 357–367.
packaging for refrigerated food on display. J. Food Eng. 109, 202–208.
Bugala, A., 2019. Polish foreign trade in frozen fruit and vegetables in the 2018/19
Dąbrowska, A., Babicz-Zielińska, E., 2011. Zachowania konsumentów w stosunku do
season. Ferment. Fruit Veget. For. Ind. 63 (10), 20–22.
żywności nowej generacji. HYGEIA Public Health 46 (1), 39–46.
DEFRA, 2017. UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, 2017.

10
M. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska and E. Polak
Dong, G., Mao, X., Zhou, J., Zeng, A., 2013. Carbon footprint accounting and dynamics
and the driving forces of agricultural production in Zhejiang Province. China Eco
Econ 91, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.003.
Dorward, L.J., 2012. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? A comment. Food Pol. 37,
463–466.
Fabi, C., Cachia, F., Conforti, P., English, A., Moncayo, J.R., 2021. Improving data on
food losses and waste: from theory to practice. Food Pol. 98, 101934.
Gadema, Z., Oglethorpe, D., 2011. The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: a
policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Pol. 36,
815–822.
Gaffney, J., Bing, J., Byrne, P.F., Cassman, K.G., Ciampitti, I., Delmer, D., Habben, J.,
Lafitte, H.R., Lidstrom, U.E., Porter, D.O., Sawyer, J.E., Schussler, J., Setter, T.,
Sharp, R.E., Vyn, T.J., Warner, D., 2019. Science-based intensive agriculture:
sustainability, food security, and the role of technology. Global Food Security 23,
236–244.
Garnett, T., 2008. Cooking up a Storm – Food, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Our
Changing Climate. Food Climate Research Network, University of Surrey, UK.
Garofalo, P., D’Andrea, L., Tomaiuolo, M., Venezia, A., Castrignanò, A., 2017.
Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains in Italy: the case of the
whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assessment methodology. J. Food
Eng. 200, 1–12.
Grebitus, C., Steiner, B., Veeman, M., 2015. The roles of human values and generalized
trust on stated preferences when food is labeled with environmental footprints:
insights from Germany. Food Pol. 52, 84–91.
Green, A., Nemecek, Th, Chaudhary, A., Mathys, A., 2020. Assessing nutritional, health,
and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Global Food
Security 26, 100406.
Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., Wills, J., 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer
motivation, understanding and use. Food Pol. 44, 177–189.
GUS, 2019. Central Statistical Office. Warsaw 2019.
Kanter, D.R., Schwoob, M.-H., Baethgen, W.E., Bervejillo, J.E., Carriquiry, M.,
Dobermann, A., Ferraro, B., Lanfranco, B., Mondelli, M., Penengo, C., Saldias, R.,
Silva, M.E., Soaresde Lima, J.M., 2016. Translating the Sustainable Development
Goals into action: a participatory backcasting approach for developing national
agricultural transformation pathways. Global Food Security 10, 71–79.
Khan, S., Khan, M.A., Hanjra, M.A., Mu, J., 2009. Pathways to reduce the environmental
footprints of water and energy inputs in food production. Food Pol. 34, 141–149.
KOBiZE, 2020. National Center for Emission Management and Balancing - CO2, SO2,
NOx, CO and Total Dust Emission Indicators for Electricity Based on the Information
Contained in the National Base on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Other
Substances for 2019. Warsaw 2020.
Kuempel, C.D., Frazier, M., Nash, K.L., Jacobsen, N.S., Williams, D.R., Blanchard, J.L.,
Cottrell, R.S., McIntyre, P.B., Moran, D., Bouwman, L., Froehlich, H.E., Gephart, J.A.,
Metian, M., Többen, J., Halpern, B.S., 2020. Integrating life cycle and impact
assessments to map food’s cumulative environmental footprint. One Earth 3, 65–78.
11
Journal of Food Engineering 322 (2022) 110974
Leach, A.M., Emery, K.A., Gephart, J., Davis, K.F., Erisman, J.W., Leip, A., Pace, M.L.,
D’Odorico, P., Carr, J., Noll, L.C., Castner, E., Galloway, J.N., 2016. Environmental
impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Pol. 61,
213–223.
Misganaw, G., Baars, R., Verschuur, M., Tesfahun, B., Endale, S., Haile, D., 2020. Carbon
footprint in the downstream dairy value chain in Ziway-Hawassa milk shed,
Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00968-8.
Mustafa, M.A., Mabhaudhi, T., Massawe, F., 2021. Building a resilient and sustainable
food system in a changing world – a case for climate-smart and nutrient dense crops.
Global Food Security 28, 100477.
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M., Bohra, J.S., Adhya, T.K., Bhattacharyya, P., 2014. Recalcitrant
and labile carbon pools in a sub-humid tropical soil under different tillage
combinations: a case study of rice–wheat system. Soil Tillage Res. 143, 116− 122.
Pasqualino, J., Meneses, M., Castells, F., 2011. The carbon footprint and energy
consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. J. Food Eng. 103 (4),
357–365.
Pramulya, R., Bantacut, T., Noor, E., Yani, M., 2019. Carbon footprint calculation for
gayo arabica coffee primer processing. Inter J Sci Techn Res 8 (12), 2934–2938.
Puigdueta, I., Aguilera, E., Cruz, J.L., Iglesias, A., Sanz-Cobena, A., 2021. Urban
agriculture may change food consumption towards low carbon diets. Global Food
Security 28, 100507.
Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V.K., Evans, D.,
Koh, L., Kanyama, C.A., Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, Å., Jackson, P., 2019. Review:
consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – what works and how to
design better interventions. Food Pol. 83, 7–27.
Röös, E., 2013. Analysing the carbon footprint of food. Diss. Uppsala: sveriges
lantbruksuniv. Acta Univers. Agri. Sueciae 56, 1652–6880.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2009.
A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 90 (1),
1–10.
Sandström, V., Valin, H., Krisztin, T., Havlík, P., Herrero, M., Kastner, Th, 2018. The role
of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets. Global Food Security 19, 48–55.
Styles, D., Williamson, J., Jewer, A., Haddaway, N., Price, M., 2014. Background Report
on Best Environmental Management Practice for the Crop and Animal Production
Sector, EUR – Scientific and Technical Research Series. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2008. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In: Ecological
Economics Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA.
Wojdalski, J., Grochowicz, J., Dróżdż, B., Bartoszewska, K., Zdanowska, P., Kupczyk, A.,
Ekielski, A., Florczak, I., Hasny, A., Wójcik, G., 2015. Energy efficiency of a
confectionery plant – case study. J. Food Eng. 146, 182–191.
Wróbel-Jędrzejewska, M., Stęplewska, U., SKuleta, P., Przybysz, P., Polak, E., 2016.
Carbon footprint of fruit paste technology. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 25 (1), 341–349.
https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/60244.
Zhou, Sh, Zhu, Z., Sun, D.-W., Xu, Z., Zhang, Z., Wang, Q.-J., 2017. Effects of different
cooling methods on the carbon footprint of cooked rice. J. Food Eng. 215, 44–50.