Sustainability Assessment of Coffee Silverskin Waste Management in the Metropolitan City of Naples (Italy): A Life Cycle Perspective

Giuliana Ansanelli (), Gabriella Fiorentino (), Rosaria Chifari, Karin Meisterl, Enrica Leccisi and Amalia Zucaro ()
Additional contact information
Giuliana Ansanelli: ENEA, Division Resource Efficiency, Department for Sustainability, Research Centre of Portici, 80055 Portici, Italy
Gabriella Fiorentino: ENEA, Division Resource Efficiency, Department for Sustainability, Research Centre of Portici, 80055 Portici, Italy
Rosaria Chifari: Fundacion ENT, c/Josep Llanza, 1-7, 2n 3a, 08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain
Karin Meisterl: Fundacion ENT, c/Josep Llanza, 1-7, 2n 3a, 08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain
Enrica Leccisi: Metropolitan City of Naples, 80133 Naples, Italy
Amalia Zucaro: ENEA, Division Resource Efficiency, Department for Sustainability, Research Centre of Portici, 80055 Portici, Italy

Sustainability, 2023, vol. 15, issue 23, 1-27

Abstract: The use of renewable biological resources, including biowaste, within a circular framework, is crucial for the transition to more sustainable production and consumption patterns. By means of life cycle assessment and life cycle costing methodologies, this study compares the environmental and economic performances of two disposal scenarios for coffee silverskin, the major waste from coffee roasting. The business-as-usual (BaU) scenario, currently applied in the Metropolitan City of Naples (Italy), involves silverskin composting, while the proposed alternative scenario explores the valorization of silverskin as a functional ingredient in bakery products. The alternative scenario results are more advantageous since replacing flour with silverskin in bakery products reduces environmental impact by 96% more than replacing synthetic fertilizers with compost in the BaU scenario. Furthermore, in the alternative scenario, coffee roasters halve their silverskin disposal costs, compared to the BaU scenario (447.55 € versus 190.09 €, for 1 ton). Finally, the major environmental burdens are resource use for equipment construction (37% for BaU, 62% for alternative, on average) and electricity consumption (30% for BaU, 67% for alternative, on average), while the highest economic cost is due to personnel (58% for BaU, 88% for alternative, on average).

Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); life cycle costing (LCC); circular bioeconomy; biowaste valorization; industrial symbiosis; novel food (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16281/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16281/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16281-:d:1287213

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().