ArticleOpen research Europe2026
Life cycle sustainability assessment of a multi-technology action for food loss and waste prevention.
Article in Open research Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Life cycle sustainability assessment of a multi-technology action for food loss and waste prevention.Open research Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Food waste persists as a global challenge, with upstream preventive technological innovations still insufficiently evaluated for their sustainability performance despite policy pressure and the Sustainable Development Goals. The objective of this article is to present a sustainability assessment, from a life-cycle perspective, of an innovative food waste prevention and reduction (FLWPR) action that integrates multiple technologies within the fresh potato supply chain and to examine to what extent the food waste hierarchy aligns with multidimensional sustainability criteria. The intervention applies to a pilot phase technology that consists of advanced imaging and sensor-based detection system to identify internal defects in potatoes early in the supply chain. Potatoes identified as defective are redirected for valorization using commercially available technology into fifth-range products, animal feed, or starch. Methods: The multi-technological FLWPR action is assessed by applying a Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment using the EF 3.1 method for environmental impacts, a SHDB-based method for social impacts, and Life Cycle Costing for the economic dimension. Results: Demonstrate a substantial reduction in food loss and waste, a reduction in the impacts of the three pillars of sustainability and a successful implementation of circular economy practices. Conclusions: The contribution of this work lies in providing one of the first holistic life-cycle sustainability evaluations of an upstream preventive technological FLWPR action. It demonstrates how the impacts observed during a pilot phase of a technological intervention can be effectively complemented by already commercialized technologies, thereby generating significant system-wide benefits. Moreover, the work highlights pathways to reinforce circularity and enhance sustainability across food supply chains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.