Green technological interventions for controlling carbon footprint in agro-food processing: a critical review

Abstract

The major cause of climate change has been attributed to the food systems. Thus, sustainability in the agri-food processing industry is becoming increasingly crucial in terms of carbon footprint estimation. The unit operations in the food supply chain, such as processing, packaging, transportation, and consumption, emit various greenhouse gases, which increase the footprint during the food supply chain. Hence, the review article highlighted green technological interventions in the food supply chain with case studies of pre-harvesting and post-harvesting operations. Additional information about carbon footprint (CFP) labeling, packaging, storage, and transportation is discussed to minimize greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and enhance consumer awareness in terms of food choices based on the carbon footprint values of the product. Green technologies subject to the food supply chain positively influence sustainability. This technology will aid in the strategic decision-making process for reducing food waste and reducing carbon footprint production.

Graphical abstract

Introduction

Worldwide food production has expanded greatly since the Industrial Revolution, but at a rate that is slower than that of the world's population, with much more waste, and a less effective distribution of resources. According to a 2010 International Resource Panel report from the United Nations Environment Programme, agriculture and food consumption are two of the major contributors to environmental problems (Hertwich, 2010). The requirement for food has been growing continuously due to population growth, economic development, and living standards globally. While other systems around the world are liable for 31% of human-caused GHG emissions, the agro-food system emits approx. 51 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The most recent data show that 5.8 billion metric tons of the 16.5 billion metric tons of GHG emissions from supply-chain activities, 3.5 billion metric tons of land use change, and 7.2 billion metric tons of farm gate emissions originated from the worldwide total agri-food systems in 2019.

The agricultural food supply chain is the collection of manufacturing and transportation processes that take agricultural products from the point of production to the point of consumption (AFSC) (Yadav et al., 2022). Each phase of the AFSC adds a distinct value to the finished product. The raw produce is created during the production stage, whereas this raw produce is processed during the processing step. After processing, it is kept at distribution centers before being delivered to different shops; produce is then purchased by consumers through retailers. All these unit operations generate lots of emissions, which will affect the climate and increase the carbon footprint. About one-third of carbon emissions are caused by humans associated with food (Crippa et al., 2021). When applied to the food supply chain, blockchain improves the traceability of data and transactions associated with food, enables quick and easy verification of food safety and quality compliance, increases the traceability of data and transactions linked to food-related transactions, and strengthens the privacy of sensitive data about the food supply chain (Kayikci et al., 2022a). Climate change has an impact on all sorts of ecosystems and can have an impact on food production and ecosystem services like carbon storage. As the environment continues to degrade, consumers, businesses, governmental agencies, and academia have recently shown a greater interest in the sustainability of agro-food supply chains. The network design of an agro-food supply chain is one of the most important aspects affecting its sustainability (Allaoui et al., 2018). A new report sponsored by the UN agriculture agency and presented at the COP26 climate summit claims that food production, packaging, shipping, consumption by households, and waste disposal are pushing the food supply chain to the top of the list of greenhouse gas emitters.

To deal with climate-related issues, several protocols were released to maintain global temperatures. In a nutshell, the Kyoto Protocol operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by mandating that industrialized countries and economies in transition set and meet their national greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. According to the Kyoto Protocol, six fundamental pollutants are responsible for emissions: carbon dioxide (CO₂), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆) (Maji et al., 2022). The conventional techniques used during agro-food processing contribute to increasing the carbon footprint (Smith et al., 2019). Therefore, several studies have been carried out to establish novel green technologies in order to mitigate these issues and reduce carbon footprints (Ghosh et al., 2020a; Barrett et al., 2020; Luthra et al., 2014). The need for sustainable food production and processing technology has grown because of recent centuries' rapid population rise and the corresponding demands brought on by industrialization (Smith & Gregory, 2013). Thus, the sustainability of the methods utilized in food production and the zeal with which new procedures and technologies are developed to handle constantly shifting and conflicting constraints will determine the ability to meet the rising demand for food supplies. Growing awareness about green technologies increased the use of organic processing inputs, usage of recyclable and environmentally friendly products, and packaging materials to fulfil sustainable food processing approaches. The main aim of this review article is to provide deep insights into various sustainable green operations in the agro-food supply chains with detailed related literature. Challenges and future aspects in the field of green technology in the food supply chain are also discussed in the review article for its establishment throughout the world.

Agro-food supply chain and processing operations

The agro-food supply chain refers to a system that links consumer-oriented food from farm to fork in an organized manner. The main aim of the supply chain is to optimize the processing pattern within the system that helps produce wholesome food quickly and efficiently. Globally, the food sector consumes approximately 200 × 10¹⁸ J per year (FAO 2017; EIA 2017), with processing and distribution corresponding to 45% of the overall intake. This energy intensity is associated with significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion (FAO, 2017). The dynamic agro-food industry consumes energy in various processes, from crop production to marketing (Kamilaris et al., 2019).

The conventional set-up of supply chains was relatively simple and local (Fig. 1a). Nowadays, due to the globalization of the commercial market, novel processing techniques, and better transportation and communication, the supply chain has become quick but complex (Kamilaris et al., 2019). The prevailing agro-food supply chain (Fig. 1b) integrates multiple stakeholders from across the world, including producers, pickers, processors, storage, packers, and transport facilitators, as well as marketers, exporters, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers (Caro et al., 2018). Each step in the food supply chain ensured monitoring with possible techniques to maintain quality and reduce losses. Employing technologies such as barcodes, QR codes, and temperature indicators automates data processing and collection, resulting in reduced processes, increased precision, efficient tracking, and capital savings, which eventually raise the supply chain’s total efficiency (Kubáňová et al., 2022). Hence the modern agro-food supply chain is a dynamic and multifaceted system that incorporates technologies, processes, and stakeholders through innovations and is evolving as per consumer requirements to shape its development, the main phase characterizing a generic agri-food supply chain depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Schematic representation of a conventional agro-food supply chain, b modern agro-food supply chain

Production

The phase of production encompasses all agricultural activities, including the use of organic materials (fertilizers, seeds, animal breeds, and feeds) to grow crops and rear animals and poultry. This phase is being carried out at the farm level. Depending on the season, cultivar practices, and animal production cycle, the produce can be recorded at one or more harvests per yield (Rosenstock et al., 2016). The raw material for selective food commodities requires transportation from the production line to the processing line for not only conversion into edible products but also increasing its shelf life (Lillford & Hermansson, 2021).

Processing

The processing phase deals with the conversion of inedible produce into edible or partially edible produce as per demand. Processing involves the development of either primary products (the conversion of wheat into flour) or one or more of their secondary products (bread, cookies, buns, etc.), followed by packaging that includes a production batch code containing product information and a list of ingredients, nutritional information, etc., as per regulations (Kayikci et al., 2022b). It is not only used to preserve food but also to add value to various food products. The various unit operations used to produce food products are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Processing operations involved in various food supply chain

Fruit processing

Fruits are high-moisture commodities with a short shelf life. Fruits are processed using different processing technologies like canning, drying, jam, jelly, flakes, and powder to increase their quality and shelf life (Nayik & Muzaffar, 2014). The products are used as a base ingredient for numerous industries, like bakery and confectionery. Cabinet dryers are generally used to dry fruits and vegetables (GHG emissions).

Fresh produce emissions, such as fresh fruits, can be calculated using 'cradle-to-market' life-cycle carbon footprint calculations. These calculations use the kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂eq) emitted per kilogram of produce transported to market as a unit of measurement. Fruit cultivation involves a number of inputs and procedures that raise CO₂ emissions. CO₂ is released during the production, storage, and/or transportation of inputs such as fertilizers, lime, pesticides, water, and fossil fuels (Pachauri & Meyer, 2014;  Karlsson (2017) conducted a farm gate study and reported the climatic impact of various fruit in the range of 0.108–0.364 kg CO₂-eq/kg fresh fruit, where apple production on the climate was 0.108, while the median impact of apricot production was 0.364.

Vegetable processing

Vegetables like carrots, radishes, cauliflower, cucumber, and garlic are largely processed into pickles and other products. The processing of vegetables is different from fruits due to their neutral pH (6.0–7.0) (Kumar et al., 2020a, b. Brining is another process wherein fermented vegetables are also used; likewise, the drying of vegetables enhances the shelf life and availability of vegetables in off-seasons and for developing instant soups, meals, etc.

The use of fertilizers and fuels, as well as the production of vegetables, which is typically done in monoculture systems, contribute to climate change and global warming since they release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when the land is tilled extensively (Martin-Gorriz et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2021). The total greenhouse gas emissions for each production (kg CO₂eq ha-1 year-1) were divided by the total crop yield (kg vegetables ha-1 year-1), and the partials were added to give the total for each scenario (Pereira et al., 2022). This process yielded the carbon footprint needed to produce one kilogram of vegetables. The highest emitters of CO₂ eq per tonne are high-value crops like peas, asparagus, and potatoes, whereas cucumbers, celery, and carrots have the lowest emissions.

Cereal processing

Cereals are widely consumed as staples and are the major source of energy in meals throughout the world. The conversion of grains into primary processed products, followed by secondary products, requires a number of unit operations. Cleaning, grading, and dehulling are the foremost processing techniques that are commonly used in the cereal processing industry. Dehulling removes the outer hull by applying friction to the grain. This results in a reduction in the size of the grain with minimal or no damage to the bran (Thakur et al., 2019). Milling is the process of developing primary processed products from grains such as whole and refined flour, grits, semolina, etc., as shown in Fig. 2. The primary products are further processed into secondary products such as crackers, cookies, bread, cakes, muffins, flakes, and puffs by using various types of unit operations such as mixing, proofing, slicing, baking, extrusion, and packaging. About 19% of the greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture, where cereal commodities like rice have the highest emission rate while wheat comparatively lower impact. In India, 1 kg CO₂ -eq is emitted from every kilogram of product in the production of fruits, vegetables, and grains (apart from rice) (Van Hung et al., 2017). The least damaging to the environment is cereals like jowar (sorghum), bajra (pearl millet), ragi (finger millet), and micro millets. The ability of millets to adapt to a variety of ecological conditions, as well as their reduced need for irrigation, improved growth and productivity under low-nutrient input conditions, decreased reliance on synthetic fertilizers, and minimal susceptibility to environmental stresses, make them well-known for their climate-resilient qualities. Millets have a carbon footprint of 3,218 kg, which is lower than that of wheat (3,968 kg of CO₂/ha) and rice (3,401, kg of CO₂/ha) (Tiwari et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2022).

Milk processing

Milk is known to be widely consumed throughout the world. In the dairy industry, enteric fermentation is the main hotspot, accounting for up to 75% of overall emissions in the form of methane. The remaining carbon emissions take place during milk processing in the form of secondary measures such as electricity and transportation. Milk is pre-heated to about 35–40 °C using a plate or tubular heat exchanger for efficient filtration and clarification. The viscosity of milk decreases with an increase in milk temperature, resulting in more efficient filtration (by straining) or clarification (by centrifugal force) in order to remove suspended foreign particles. Pasteurization is used to eliminate pathogens at 71.5℃ for at least 15 s from milk. Homogenization reduces the size of the fat globule up to 2 µm and distributes it uniformly throughout milk.

Based on the type of products to be processed from milk, common processing techniques such as concentration, coagulation, churning, and drying are commonly used. Concentrated milk is processed by partially removing water from milk, called concentration. The concentrated milk is either unsweetened (evaporated milk) or sweetened (condensed milk) and contains a definite amount of milk fat and solids. Coagulation is practiced in milk processing to convert liquid milk into a solid mass using bacterial cultures or enzymes. Bacterial cultures such as lactic acid bacteria are used to prepare curd or yogurt, while enzyme like Rennet is used to develop cheese. The by-product whey obtained during cheese processing is used to process whey protein isolates and concentrates. Butter, on the other hand, is a product that is widely consumed throughout India. It is prepared by separating milk from milk fat by a process called churning. Drying in milk processing is used to increase the shelf life of the milk by up to 18 months. The milk is converted into milk powder using a process called spray drying.

According to estimates, 3–4% of the greenhouse gases produced by humans worldwide are due to milk production (Dalgaard et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2013). Additionally, it has been found that the production of raw milk is the element that has the most impact on the overall impact of dairy products like cheese, yogurt, or processed milk. The carbon footprint of the milk determines the carbon footprint of the derived dairy products. The dairy herd was projected to emit 1,969 million tons of greenhouse gases (0.8–2.4 kg CO₂ eq kg-1) per year, accounting for around 26% of total carbon emissions (Gerber et al., 2013).

Livestock and poultry processing

The carbon footprint values of meat and poultry products are higher than those of plant-based food commodities. In comparison to plant-based foods, meat and dairy products produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The most polluting is beef, which accounts for 25% of total emissions from animal-based foods. Additionally, rumination in cattle, sheep, and goats is well-recognized for producing large volumes of methane gas (Jazbec et al., 2022). The ruminants are poor nitrogen converters and can absorb 5–30% of the nitrogen they ingest; the rest, 70–95%, is expelled in their faeces and urine. The Cattle dung produces nitrous oxide that is released into the environment (Luo et al., 2010) Methane gas, which makes up around 44% of animal emissions, is followed by nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, which makes up 29 and 27%of emissions, respectively. Slaughtering results in 18% of the entire greenhouse gas emissions emitted through human activity globally. The by-products obtained during slaughtering, evisceration, scalding, and chopping possess higher chemical and biological oxygen demand that affects the environment. According to estimates from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global livestock production contributes 14.5% of all anthropogenic (human-produced) emissions, or 7.1 gigatonnes of CO₂ equivalent, each year (Twine, 2021).

Packaging and distribution

Packaging is a basic need in the food processing sector as it acts as a barrier against external factors and the product. The need for packaging has risen across industries and this has resulted in a rise in carbon emissions globally (Ncube et al. 2021). Paper and Board, rigid plastics, glass, flexible pouches, and cans are some of the packaging materials that are commonly used in the food processing sector. The carbon emissions of pouches, paper, styrofoam, aluminum, and plastic produce 0.94, 1.16, 2.32, and 3.50 kg carbon emissions per kg of packaging, respectively. Packaged and labelled products are dispatched to the market via varied transportation channels. The transportation time depends on the product and demand range (Pålsson et al., 2018). Once distribution is complete, the products move onto the retailer phase, where they are sold to customers.

Mitigation strategies to reduce carbon footprint in the food supply chain

Green technologies in food processing

Due to the greater demand for food in the current scenario, food processing industries are vigorously fulfilling their demand using sustainable technologies that cut down the carbon footprint values throughout the entire food supply chain (Maria et al., 2019). The most effective method to preserve food is high-temperature processing, which has been used extensively in the food processing industry for ages (Huebbe and Rimbach, 2020). Industrialization brought a new revolution in terms of high-temperature processing, viz., pasteurization, sterilization, and drying for which energy is obtained from the burning of natural resources while electricity is used for the generation of power to perform mechanical operations (Manaf and Yusof, 2020).

The carbon footprint of food systems has been minimized by the implementation of mitigation measures. Renewable energy sources, such as electricity, in place of fossil fuels have been used to reduce the global warming potential (GWP) of fuels. To lower the GWP from fuels, mobile energy resources like tractors, ships, and other similar machines have been switched out for electric engines or hydrogen gas. Alternative measures such as non-thermal techniques in place of thermal technologies are not only advantageous in terms of nutritional safety but also contribute to environmental safety (More et al., 2022). Several non-thermal food processing techniques like ultrasound, microwave, ohmic heating, pulsed electric fields, supercritical fluid, and high-pressure processing have been investigated by researchers to improve the physicochemical functional properties and shelf life of products (Shao et al., 2021; Anaya-Esparza et al., 2017; Dourado et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2022). Thus, emerging technologies for minimizing carbon emissions during food processing have been segregated into three phases pre-processing, in-line processing, and post-processing operations.

Pre-processing techniques

Artificial intelligence

Agriculture is very sensitive to regions and climate changes affecting crop modulation yield. Various GHGs are emitted during agricultural practices, i.e., crop production, processing, packaging, transportation, and marketing, leading to an increase in global carbon footprints (Adewale et al., 2018). Artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging technology and plays an important role in alleviating carbon emissions in pre-processing operations. In farm activities, AI solutions can be deployed to enhance efficiency and alleviate carbon footprints (Iafrate, 2018; Jaiswal and Agrawal, 2020).

In order to create a predictive probability model that can pinpoint the genes primarily responsible for a plant's favorable characteristics, AI solutions are helpful. In addition to influencing water efficacy, climate change adaptation, and disease resistance, it is highly helpful in increasing certain genes that are significant for enhancing nutrient content, flavor, and smell. With leaf vein geomorphology, it can analyze crop performance with more detailed information at a faster rate (Mor et al., 2021). The AI operations use less water, pesticides, etc., which results in lower carbon emissions due to the energy-saving efficiency and enhanced agricultural production. The product will be high in nutritional content with better sensory and quality attributes rendering several health benefits. We can harvest crops from the field as per the required grades using AI-coupled technologies, saving time and effort and maintaining quality (Panpatte and Ganeshkumar, 2021).

AI can also reduce the harvesting cost, cleaning, sorting, packing, and cooling of products in terms of the workforce, i.e., about four labourers would be required per acre of land (Liu et al., 2016a, b). The AI solutions minimize human and mechanical inputs, thereby lowering the carbon footprint. It also provides an efficient platform for farmers and consumers looking for market-finding affordable agricultural produce by effectively facilitating the sorting, grading, and assembly of farm produce and bridging the gap between farmers and consumers. Blockchain technology can be convenient for identifying and tracing food products back to farms. According to Panasonic, AI-based robots in Japanese tomato farms have been successful in cutting labour time by 20%. When used in the aggregation of farm products, AI-enabled solutions reduce the time (human and machine) and transportation costs, lowering the process's carbon footprint (Liu et al., 2016a, b; Panasonic, 2022).

AI-based computers can categorize crop quality traits that can raise product prices and decrease waste by using data analytics to detect and identify new features of the crops. The food will be of good quality and emit fewer greenhouse gases as a result of the reduced incorporation of hazardous substances into the food chain. The AI tool deployment in farming can be useful for planning and optimizing the supply chain, which contains demand forecasting logistics, minimizing spoilage, reducing food waste, which provides the best price to farmers and consumers, preventing undernourishment, and reducing the carbon footprint (Verma et al., 2015).

Ration balancing NDDB method

The Ration Balancing method used by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) has shown promise in lowering enteric methane emissions from cows and buffaloes. A Windows-based, internet-connected application called the Ration Balancing Program (RBP) compares the current nutritional state of an animal's food to its nutrient needs. An array of "nutrition masters" and a feed-data library are included in the RBP (Joshi, 2017). The feed-data library was developed by collecting a diverse range of feed materials from various agroecological regions within the country. These materials encompass green and dry forages, leaves from trees, grains, oil cakes, and agro-industrial by-products (Garg et al., 2016). Multiple nutrition models were developed based on the existing national and international feeding regulations for animals in different stages of growth, lactation, and pregnancy. According to predictions made by Sherasia et al. (2016) and Jabbar et al. (2017), giving balanced feeds to cows and buffaloes will significantly increase milk production while decreasing milk emission intensity over the course of a lifetime by 31.2% and 34.7%, respectively.

In-line processing techniques

Low temperature processing

Isochoric freezing

Freezing is another widely used and effective unit operation in food preservation (James et al., 2015). The carbon footprint value of freezing increases as it requires a huge amount of energy to freeze water within the food product. When water is subjected to cooling above its freezing point within a freezer or refrigerator, it exhibits a specific heat capacity of 4.18 kJ/kg °C. The process of transitioning from a liquid to a solid state at a temperature of 0 °C necessitates the removal of a latent heat of 335 kJ/kg (Kousksou et al., 2011). The specific heat of ice is approximately 2 kJ/kg °C when the temperature is below its freezing point. Therefore, it is important to find new alternatives that can reduce freezing time while improving the organoleptic properties of food in a more energy-efficient way (James et al., 2015). The traditional freezing process not only causes flavor and nutrient losses but also utilizes a huge amount of energy (James and James, 2014). To freeze the food below 0 °C requires exposure of the food to the air in conventional freezing. The cooling industry is important for the transportation and preservation of food but accounts for about 10% of global carbon emissions (James and James, 2010). As a result of climate change, as the global temperature continues to rise, so does the demand for cooling. Isochoric freezers consume less energy as compared to traditional freezers of equal mass because isochoric frozen products have only 55% of mass while 45% of mass remains unfrozen at the triple point (Kumari et al., 2022). According to research by Jaglo et al. (2021) and Powell-Palm and Rubinsky (2019), isochoric freezing might reduce annual energy consumption by up to 6.5 billion kilowatt-hours and the associated carbon emissions by 4.6 billion kg.

When compared to traditional preservation techniques like cold storage and individual quick freezing (IQF), isochoric preservation safeguards tomato quality stability in terms of color, shape, and texture. While the tomatoes preserved in an isochoric system at − 2.5 °C displayed the ideal qualities (Bilbao-Sainz et al., 2021). Isochoric freezing also preserved the lycopene, ascorbic acid, phenolic content, and antioxidant activity in tomatoes because of cell compartmentalization remained intact during preservation. There is no crystal formation, and the low pressure showed a decrease in tissue damage of tomatoes, under a cryo-scanning electron microscope (cryo-SEM), thus preserving the nutritional quality of tomatoes. Vegetables like potatoes and spinach were also researched for quality retention using isochoric freezing (Bilbao-Sainz et al., 2020a; Lyu et al., 2017; Bilbao-Sainz et al., 2020b).

Transcritical (TC) system

The trans-critical (TC) cycle uses a gas cooler instead of a condenser (used in conventional freezing) as the temperature of carbon dioxide (CO₂) is higher than its critical temperature (Fig. 3). Thus, CO₂ is used in the gaseous state without condensation in the TC system (Gupta et al., 2010; Pieve et al., 2017; Larsen et al., 2007). The modified refrigeration system is easily available, toxic-free which does not possess environmental constraints or hazards, is toxic-free, and is economically viable. CO₂ undergoes varying pressure and temperature changes in different phases in a transcritical cycle. CO₂ has a far greater index of compression than synthetic refrigerants, it’s the discharge temperature of CO₂ is higher than that of standard HFC refrigerants (about 100–120 °C). The higher enthalpy of CO₂ also makes it possible to recover more of the heat that is rejected, which makes TC CO₂ systems more appealing for heat recovery (Murray, 2014; Mitchell, 2015). Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras, has developed India’s first green supermarket refrigeration system. Transcritical CO₂ (TC-CO₂) systems were developed in the early 2000 s (Rathore, 2018).

Fig. 3.

The comparative layout of a transcritical CO₂ and b conventional refrigeration system.

Source: Pieve et al. (2017), Larsen et al. (2007)

One of the key benefits of this system is the abundant supply of CO₂ in the environment. TC-CO₂ is a multifaceted system with all the operational modes, including air conditioning, supermarkets, and heat recovery (Rathore, 2018). The technology is said to function even at temperatures as high as 45 °C. The researchers added a liquid ejector and tweaked the system to flood the evaporator (Pieve et al., 2017). This tweak improved the CO₂ cooling stability and overall power reduction. The installation of the first TC-CO₂ supermarket refrigeration took place in Italy in 2005. Denmark has already phased out HFCs (hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon), while the UK and Germany are on their way to doing the same by the next decade (Vuppaladadiyam et al., 2022). The TC-CO₂ systems have been gaining popularity in Canada since 2012. Regional government organizations in Canada are offering subsidies and incentives for replacing existing refrigeration systems with TC-CO₂ systems in supermarkets. The Hannaford Supermarket in Turner, United States, was the first in the country to install a TC-CO₂ system in July 2013.

High-temperature processing

Dehydration

The drying of food for commercial operations requires a huge amount of energy. Drying is the most commonly used technique for a wide range of agricultural products for preservation, i.e., quality control, quality assurance, reducing storage losses, and increasing shelf life (Tiwari and Sardar, 2020; Ahmadi et al., 2021). Commercially, several drying techniques are available, and each technique has its advantages and limitations. Modern drying techniques include infrared drying (Baeghbali et al., 2020), convective drying (Chandramohan, 2020), spray drying (Lucas et al., 2020), freeze-drying (Różyło, 2020), microwave drying (Gaukel et al., 2017), and dielectric or drum drying. These techniques use a controlled environment to yield a product of superior quality; notably, the high expenses and increased carbon emissions associated with them make them a viable option for a food processor. Many researchers gave more importance to the pre-treatments (ultrasonication, pulse electric field, ohmic heating, etc.) of the foods before drying (Malakar et al., 2023; Won et al., 2015; Kwao et al., 2016; Moreno et al., 2016). These can reduce processing time and energy consumption. A substantial amount of energy and processing time will be required for freeze-drying. Prosapio et al. (2017) conducted a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) research study that found that osmotic dehydration and freeze-drying of strawberries resulted in a 25% reduction in CO₂ emissions compared to conventional freeze-drying techniques. Over the past few years, the natural modes of drying have become more popular in the agriculture sector owing to the cost-effectiveness and use of clean sources of energy (Gupta et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2022). The energy from sunlight can be stored and supplied when required by employing thermal energy storage. A comparable thermal energy storage system is utilized by the solar dryers. Small farmers in developing nations may find solar dryers useful for preserving their produce, including cash crops like flowers, tea, and coffee, as well as grains like rice, wheat, corn, and beans, as well as fruits and vegetables like carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, and onions (Lingayat et al., 2021, 2020).

Non-thermal processing

Pulsed electric field

The pulsed electric field (PEF) is a novel and promising sustainable technology in the food processing sector as it uses an external, short-duration (nanoseconds or milliseconds) electric field on microorganisms (Carpentieri et al., 2022). These short pulses form very fine pores on the cell membrane of the microorganisms; thus, it is termed electroporation. The use of PEF as pre-treatment along with steam in tomato peeling, reduced power consumption by 20% (Arnal et al., 2018). PEF-assisted steam pressure processing was optimized to remove tomato peel at 0.40 kJ/kg with a steam pressure of 80 kPa, whereas only steam peeling required 100 kPa of pressure (Table 1). Food preservation techniques like canning and peeling also have a 90% impact on the environment due to the high energy, water, or chemical requirements. Some of the unique peeling techniques that have gained popularity recently include infrared radiation, ultrasound, ohmic heating, and pulsed electric fields (Cortes et al., 2021; Arnal et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Effect of pulsed electric field pre-treatment during food processing

Food	Process type	Processing conditions	Indicators	Observations	References
Peeling
Tomato	Steam peeling	Steam pressure = 60 and 120 kPa Residence time = 13 s Vacuum pressure = -36 ± 5 kPa Electric field strength = 0.2–0.5 kV/cm Energy inputs = 0.2–0.5 kJ/kg Pulse width = 20 µs	Water depletion (WD), fossil fuel depletion (FD), ozone depletion (OD), and climate change (CC) are all threats to the environment. So are freshwater eutrophication (FEu), human toxicity (HT), and freshwater ecotoxicity (FEc)	• 20%↓ energy usage • Optimized at 0.45 kV/cm, 0.40 kJ/kg, and steam pressure of 80 kPa • ↓ Peeling emissions by 0.043 kg CO2 • ↓ 17–20% environmental measures	Arnal et al., (2018)
	Canning-peeling			• ↓ FD, WD, FEu, OD & TA by 9.76%,19.15%,19.58%,18.14%,19.05% & 19.83%
Drying
Parsnip and carrot	Tray drying	Pulse length = 20 µs, Frequency = 50 Hz, Electric field strength = 0.9 kV/cm, No. of pulses = 1000	Drying time	• PEF as pre-treatment was found effective before drying • ↓ Drying time Carrots (28% at 70℃) Parsnips (21% at 60℃) • ↓ (L*) for carrots & (a*) for parsnips • Diffusivity ranged between (1.61–3.04) × 10–10 m2/s for carrot & (1.97–3.06) ↑ × 10–10 m2/s for parsnips • mechanical characteristics at 70℃	Alam et al., (2018)
Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) leaves	Hot air drying, Vacuum drying, and Freeze drying	No. of pulses = 65 Electric field strength = 650 V/cm, Pulse width = 150 µs Pulse length = 760 µs	Drying time	• ↓ Drying periods by PEF pre-treatment • ↓ drying periods by 57%,33%, & 25% for air drying, vacuum drying, and freeze drying	Telfser and Galindo (2019)
Chicken meat	Hot air drying	Pulse length = 7 µs No. of pulses = 75 Voltage = 75 V The initial distance between two electrodes = 6.23 mm Final distance between two electrodes = 5.87 mm Frequency = 2 Hz	Energy	• Combination dying processes like temperature-based & PEF technology • Drying at 80℃ by PEF showed effective diffusivity (2.31 × 10–9) m2s−1 • ↓ Energy consumption by 933.18 ± 22 J g−1 at 60℃	Ghosh et al., (2020b)
Extraction
Peach (Variety: Royal Glory)	Solvent extraction	Pulse width = 3 s Pulses = 30 Electric field strength = 4 kV/cm Frequency = 300 Hz Voltage = 30 kV Distance between electrodes = 3 cm	Organic solvent	• ↕ extraction efficiency solvent usage • Better retention of coumaric acid (0.8 mg/100 g), chlorogenic acid (9.8 mg/100 g), and neochlorogenic acid (16.3 mg/100 g) in water than in methanol post PEF treatment	Redondo et al., (2018)

^*↑ Upwards arrow represents the increased value, ↓ downwards represents the decreased value

About 25 to 50 percent of industrial energy is used for thermal drying in the food processing industry. Prolonged drying can alter the final product's sensory properties, affecting both the drying rate and the rehydration ratio (Doymaz, 2014). PEF pre-treatment was found to be successful in utilizing energy and saving up to 933.18 ± 22 J/g with an extended shelf life (Ghosh et al., 2020b). As a result, this method with low energy consumption can be effective in drying meat products, increasing its applicability to many other food products. Novel extraction techniques use PEF extraction, which allows the extraction of value-added and bioactive compounds such as pigments, polyphenols, nutraceutical components, and other secondary metabolites from plant cells (Chemat et al., 2017; Chudasama, 2020).

PEF requires minimal processing time as it is a clean and non-thermal process. PEF operates by passing a biological matrix sandwiched between two electrodes through high-intensity (> 0.1 kV/cm) and short (micro- to nanoseconds) electric fields. This causes cell membranes to electroporate, also known as electropermeabilization (Capodaglio, 2021). The extraction through PEF uses less water and thus minimizes wastewater production as compared to conventional extraction techniques. The overall energy consumption in the seed extraction process, along with PEF, required 100–800 kJ/kg, which can be higher with conventional techniques. The conventional process of extraction and pre-treatment techniques consumes more energy during their operation, while PEF uses renewable sources of energy for electricity production. Conventional extraction of pulpous materials needs 20–100 kJ/kg, whereas PEF requires 1- 15 kJ/kg for the same matrix. PEF also eliminates the use of solvent during extraction, improves yield and bioprocessing efficiency, and thus can be considered a green extraction technique (Rocha et al., 2018).

High-pressure processing

High-pressure processing is a non-thermal, environmentally friendly technology used in the food processing sector. It uses a non-thermal method in which the food matrix is under pressure between 1000 and 1000 MPa at ambient temperature (Guyon et al., 2016). As a green technology, it doesn’t use or produce any toxic substances that are harmful to humans or the environment. HPP has the potential to replace the conventional pasteurization process, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also listed it as a “cold pasteurization” (Aymerich et al., 2008; Guyon et al., 2016). In order to produce orange juice, LCA was carried out on both HPP and traditional (thermal) processes. To eliminate pathogenic germs, a thermal processing procedure known as thermal pasteurization (TP) is applied. The degree of contamination determines the treatment temperature and duration. There are two approaches namely TP-indirect (before packaging) and TP-retort (after packaging), to pasteurize food products. HPP-treated orange juice (1 kg) costs 1.78 to 1.40 times more than TP-indirect and TP-retort respectively, however from an environmental perspective, HPP is more efficient compared to TP as it uses electricity in comparison to fossil fuels (Cacace et al., 2020).

Cold plasma

Plasma is considered the fourth state of matter. It is composed of active species like ions, electrons, and radicals. A variety of food manufacturing and processing phases, including raw ingredients, process equipment, packaging materials, and environmental impact, have been explored concerning cold plasma (CP) technology. Possibilities of operating under low temperatures and with less energy usage while reducing microorganisms and processing time make the CP a more sustainable process (Bourke et al., 2018; Tappi et al., 2020; Han et al., 2016; Mandal et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2019). Effluents generated from the dairy and meat industries can be effectively treated by atmospheric cold plasma (ACP) (Patange et al., 2018). The untreated effluents showed toxicity, affecting D. magna and the ecosystem after 24 h of exposure. The toxicity can be influenced by the effluent types, such as raw, primary, or secondary. Subsequent removal of organic and inorganic components by plasma treatment can help minimize toxicity, as it promotes biodegradability. The Daphnia test is commonly employed as a means to assess toxicity levels, which are quantified by the EC50 value. The toxicity of the effluent was reduced by 100% and 73% after undergoing post-plasma treatment at 80 kV for a period of 5 and 10 min, respectively. Research is still required to determine any potential toxicological problems connected to plasma therapy (Patange et al., 2018).

Ozone

Fruits and vegetable surfaces can be decontaminated or sterilized using an ozone water wash or by stored in an ozone gas atmosphere (Ojha et al., 2016). Ozone is one of the promising non-thermal technologies that is currently under research in the food industry owing to its low toxicity and lasting advantages. Economy, environmental safety, practical usability, and other considerations should be considered for the efficient and secure application of ozone technology (Bataller et al., 2021). It was employed in the processing and preservation of carrots by treating them with various water types, including ozonated water, tap water, and control, to evaluate their potential detrimental effects on the environment. The study revealed that the levels of global warming, acidification, and aquatic eutrophication potential were most pronounced during the transportation and packaging stages. The combined emissions of gases like CO₂, SO₂, and PO₄ decreased by 45.2%. The transportation stage with a standard cooling tunnel had a global warming potential (GWP) of 39.80 kg CO₂ eq./t, while spraying ozonated water had a GWP of 22.13 kg CO₂ eq./t, accounting for 44.4% reduction (Chakka et al., 2021). Comparing the GWP for the packaging films, electricity, tap water, and printed paper by standard cooling tunnel treatment and spray ozonated water showed marked reductions of 44.4%, 42.7%, 93.4%, and 44.4%, respectively. Similarly, GWPs of 12.63 kg CO₂ eq./t, 6.09 kg CO₂ eq./t, 1.14 kg CO₂ eq./t, and 0.24 kg CO₂ eq./t were found for the packaging films, electricity, tap water, and printed paper, respectively. Familiar reduction of the aquatic acidification (kg SO₂ eq./t) and eutrophication potential (PO₄ P-lim/t) were found for spray-ozonated water (Chakka et al., 2021; Paulikienė et al., 2020).

Electrolysed water

Electrolyzed water (EW) is derived through electrolysis of diluted sodium chloride (NaCl) solution (0.1%). The process involves the passage of the solution through an electrolysis chamber containing both an anode and a cathode. (Wei et al., 2017). EW can be used for disinfecting and cleaning processes and is also a novel and eco-innovative technology. The EW can be reutilized as it is converted to its initial form after processing and causes no harm to humans or the environment. It is much safer as compared to sodium hypochlorite. Acidic or alkaline electrolyzed water can eliminate the expensive and hazardous chemicals used in Clean-in-Place (CIP) food processing equipment. CIP operated with EW has 25% fewer operational expenses compared to conventional methods (Chakka et al., 2021). Surfaces can be sanitized using neutral EW. It is safe to handle and discard the EW as it is generated from salt and distilled water only. It was also found that neutral EW, when encountered with organic matter, produces a low amount of organochlorinated molecules compared to sodium hypochlorite. The EW is also considered non-toxic, as the total active chlorine content obtained from the electrolysis of NaCl in electrolyzed water is about 50 to 500 ppm, which is way less than compared to conventional biocides. Combining alkaline and neutral EW reduces the bacteria population without reducing the effectiveness and production of harmful chemicals and inducing allergic reactions and corrosion (Stoica, 2018).

Extraction

Nowadays, the separation of pigments, phytochemicals, essential oils, etc. from the food matrix is a common practice employing either liquid–liquid extraction or solid-phase extraction. Conventional extraction processes require several extractants or solvents to separate components from the food matrix (Fig. 4). Conventional extraction involves maceration, percolation, decoction, Soxhlet extraction, and hydro distillation methods (Zhang et al., 2018).

Fig. 4.

Solvents used for active component extraction

The conventional process has a long operational time and requires a higher amount of solvents resulting in increased GHG and carbon footprints. Hence green extraction techniques have higher environmental benefits than traditional extraction methods. Novel extraction techniques consume less energy and are easy to operate, with higher selectivity for the targeted compound resulting in, lower carbon emission (Satari and Karimi, 2018), as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Advantageous profile of the use of green extraction technologies from plant sources

Microwave-assisted extraction

Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is known as a novel green extraction technique that favors a healthy environment as compared to other extraction techniques for several food commodities (Uzel, 2018). The technical intervention not only results in high-quality yield but also minimizes the processing time and carbon footprint values (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2015; Chaturvedi, 2018; Drinić et al., 2020; Sarfarazi et al., 2020), as listed in Table 2. Extraction using microwave heating requires direct penetration of heat into the product, which releases targeted compounds quickly with less solvent and extraction time (Dorta et al., 2013). The energy consumption and carbon footprints of rosemary extract obtained from using conventional extraction techniques (850 kWh/kg; 680 CO₂/kg) were observed higher as compared to ultrasound extraction (30 min) (23 kWh/kg; 19 kg CO₂/kg) (Jacotet-Navarro et al., 2015). Similarly, the extraction efficiency and antioxidant activity of phenolic acids from citrus wastes were found higher in microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) as compared to ultrasound-assisted and conventional extraction (Mikucka et al., 2022). The citrus peel is also rich in pectin content. Its extraction from citrus peel takes less time and energy in microwave-assisted extraction as compared to the conventional method (Satari and Karimi, 2018).

Table 2.

Novel green extraction techniques used in food systems

Extraction	Commodity	Compound	Solvent/ Enzyme	Particulars	Effect	References
Microwave extraction	Beans	Vicine	Methanol (50%)	30 ºC, 0.5 min, 1140 W	Rapid and energy-efficient method	Chaturvedi (2018)
	Oregano	Essential oil	Water 20:1	60 ºC, 50 min, 600 W	No solvent/reduced extraction time	Drinić et al. (2020)
	Saffron	Crocetin	59.59% ethanol	96 ºC, 30 min, 2.45 GHz	228 mg/g, reduced extraction time	Sarfarazi et al. (2020)
Enzyme-Assisted Extraction	Pepper	Carotenoids	Viscozyme L	60 ºC, pH = 4.5, 1 h	87.0%,	Nath et al. (2016)
	Tomato	Lycopene	Pectinase	48 ºC, pH = 3.5, 2.7 h	1.1 mg/g	Choudhari and Ananthnarayan (2018)
	Grape seeds	Phenols	Pectinase	60 ºC, pH = 5.0, 0.4 h	18–20 mg/g	Štambuk et al. (2016)
Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction	Papaya seed	Essential oil	Hexane	Batch, 40 kHz	Shorter extraction time (30 min) and maximum yield and stability	Samaram et al. (2015)
	Tomato seed	Essential oil	Hexane	Batch, 28–34 kHz	Extraction time reduction,60 min at 60C	Kamazani et al. (2014)
	Microalgae	Phenolics	Ethanol	Batch, 40 kHz, Energy intensity = 700W/cm3, time = 60 min	9.8 mg GAE/g, reduction in extraction time	Gam et al. (2020)
	Ceylon Olive leaves	Phenolics	Ethanol	Batch, 40 kHz, 300W/cm3, 120 min	92.4 mg GAE/g, save energy	Chen and Yang (2018)
	Carrot wastes	β-Carotene	-	Batch, 20 kHz, 100W/cm3, 50 min	83.32%, fast process	Purohit and Gogate (2015)
	Algae	Polysaccharides	Ethanol	Batch, 3.8 W/cm3	23% with a shorter extraction time	Vazquez-Rodríguez et al. (2020)
Supercritical fluid extraction	Green tea	Caffeine (decaffeination)	–	300 bar, 80 ºC, 1500 mL/min, 2 h, 10 g	70.2%, no solvent, reduced extraction time	Sun et al. (2010)
	Yerba mate	Caffeine (decaffeination)	–	300 bar, 60 ºC, 15.83 g/min, 4.25 h, 0.65 g	99.97%, time-saving with no extractant chemical	Santo et al. (2021)
	Chili pepper	Capsaicinoids	–	150 bar, 60 ºC, 2 ml/min, 1.4 h, 2.5 g	No solvent, 0.5% yield with reduced extraction time	De Aguiar et al. (2014)
High-pressure assisted extraction	Fig	Flavonoids	40% ethanol	600 MPa, 18–29 min	35% flavonoids with less extraction time	Alexandre et al. (2017)
	Olive	Phenolics	Ethanol	10.3 MPa, 110 min, 60 ºC	386.42 mg GAE g/ extract	Rosa et al. (2019)
	Garlic	Melanoidins	Distilled water	300 MPa, 5 min, 25 ºC	595.14 ± 12.14 μg/mg melanoidins	Zhao et al. (2019)
Pulse electric field extraction	Sweet potato	Anthocyanins	–	13.5 kWh/kg, 3.4 kV/cm, 3 μs, 35 pulses, 14 g	0.66 mg/g, shorter extraction time	Puértolas et al. (2013)
	Red beetroot	Betanine	–	2.5 kWh/kg, 7 kV/cm, 2 μs, 5 pulses	90% yield of betanine with reduced time of extraction	Fincan et al. (2004)

Enzyme assisted extraction

Enzyme-assisted extraction (EAE) is widely used nowadays. It is an eco-friendly technique for extraction of pectin, carotenoids, lycopene, and phenols from citrus peels, pepper tomatoes, and grape seeds respectively (Satari and Karimi, 2018; Nath et al., 2016; Choudhari and Ananthnarayan, 2018; Štambuk et al., 2016), as listed in Table 2. The novel technique uses enzymes to break the cell wall resulting in a high-quality yield of bioactive components and fibres, such as pectin, cellulose, and hemicellulose with minimum losses due to degradation (Pojić et al., 2018). The high-quality soybean seed oil obtained using Enzyme Assisted Extraction (EAE) resulted in minimal GHG emissions (2.35 kg CO₂, 3.52 g CH₄, and 0.04 g N₂O per kg of oil) as compared to the conventional expelling process (3.52 kg CO₂, 5.27 g CH₄, and 0.06 g N₂O per kg of oil). The technique thus has an edge over solvent extraction in terms of yield, quantity of GHG emission, and carbon footprint (Cheng et al., 2018).

Ultrasound-assisted extraction

Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) is a cavitation-based process that disrupts plant tissues containing valuable compounds such as pigments, essential oils, polysaccharides, and antioxidants with minimal use of organic solvents, as shown in Table 2 (Panja, 2018; Kamazani et al., 2014; Gam et al., 2020; Purohit and Gogate, 2015; Vauchel et al., 2018; Vazquez-Rodríguez et al., 2020). Cavitation within the food matrix promotes heat and mass transport and consequently speeds up and utilizes less energy during processing (Chemat et al., 2017; Kyriakopoulou et al., 2015).

Supercritical fluid extraction

A supercritical CO₂ (SC–CO₂)-based extraction technique called supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is considered nontoxic, non-flammable, non-corrosive, and easy to operate at critical CO₂ pressures (73.8 bar) and temperatures (31 °C). The extracted components possess quality and quantity with higher functional properties, as listed in Table 2 (Santo et al., 2021; De Aguiar et al., 2014). Thus, SFE is eco-friendly and “generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (Ahmad et al., 2019).

Other green extraction techniques

High-pressure assisted extraction (HPE) operates at room temperature, requires a short time, prevents degradation of heat-labile components, and produces a higher yield of bioactive compounds such as flavonoids, phenolics, melanoidins from varied food materials (Alexandre et al., 2017; Rosa et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019). A pulsed Electric Field (PEF) uses short electric pulses to disrupt the plant cells. PEF extraction is a green technology that yields higher efficiency with less extraction time and energy consumption (Naliyadhara et al., 2022). PEF can be used to extract bioactive components from microbes, fruits, vegetables, and their by-products as shown in Table 2 (Puértolas et al., 2013; Fincan et al., 2004).

Carbon footprint post-processing

Packaging

A food product's life cycle typically utilizes 5% of its energy for packaging, which significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the packaging of some products affects climate change more than the gasoline used to carry them to market. The survey, conducted by Brogaard et al., (2014) studied the most popular choices for packaging along with an estimate of their carbon footprints. The survey revealed that paper and cardboard resulted in the least (0.94 kg per kg) carbon emission followed by styrofoam packaging (1.16 kg per kg); aluminum packaging (2.32 kg per kg) plastic packaging (3.50 kg per kg). The end life of the packaging includes the management or recycling of packaging-related waste.

There is an increase in the EU’s political agenda for the role of consumers in CO₂-equivalent (CO₂eq) emissions. In May 2020, the EU published the “Farm-to-Fork’ technique, which includes a proposal for a ‘Sustainable Food Labelling Framework’ by 2024 (Vermote, 2020). Clear labelling and easily accessible sustainability information for agricultural and food goods are the main objectives of this system. Numerous international corporations, such as Nestlé-Germany, Unilever, Barilla, Arla, and other significant food producers, have already begun to move toward including a carbon footprint or CO₂-equivalent (CO₂eq) label on their products (Kortelainen et al., 2016). The carbon footprints of food products can be communicated through various types of labels. These labels include (1) relative reduction labels, which compare the product's carbon emissions to previous processes or competitor's emissions, or focus on specific attributes like the packaging; (2) best-in-class labels, which compare the product to similar reference products; (3) climate neutrality labels, which aim to offset production emissions; (4) absolute CO₂eq value labels, which provide direct measurements from life cycle assessments; and (5) categorical labels, which help consumers with comprehensive LCA measurements (Liu et al., 2016a, b). To construct a food label, a target quantity of CO₂ emissions per year/ per person/ per kg of the food supply is calculated (Vermote, 2020; Lemken et al., 2021).

Storage

The food and beverage industry is the largest sector wherein refrigeration is majorly used to prevent spoilage of food and enhance shelf life. Food cold chains consume a lot of energy and employ high GHG emissions which can raise global warming. Diesel-driven refrigerants produce 83% of emissions, while electricity-driven storage chambers emit 54% of the emissions. Notably, the GHG emissions tend to increase as the cold chain gets closer to the customer. Food refrigeration is estimated to contribute to approximately 2–4% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Additionally, the food cold chain, which encompasses the entire process of keeping food products at low temperatures, is responsible for approximately one-third of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions, or roughly 1% of global GHG emissions. Conventional methods of storage have higher emission rates in comparison to the emerging novel techniques for storage. Furthermore, to avoid higher GHG emissions awareness needs to be created on consumption of seasonal fruits and vegetables among users.

Transport

In many industrialized nations, transportation is the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions associated with transportation account for 50 percent of carbon emissions in comparison to all other activities in the food supply chain. Striebig et al., (2019) documented that the transportation of food from the producer to the consumer significantly contributes to the overall environmental impact. It is worth mentioning that 28% of overall energy is used for personal and freight transportation of perishable food items such as fruits and vegetables. This leads to a significant increase in carbon footprint due to carbon-intensive refrigeration to keep the produce ripened. Likewise, the case study on wine production reflected that if a third-party logistics (3PL) transportation approach is being employed there will be fewer emissions in the transportation sector (Wakeland et al., 2012).

A systemized approach using tools like life cycle assessment (LCA) to study the environmental impact of varied food commodities. Different forms of transportation generate diverse amounts of emissions. When food is carried across long distances, significant carbon dioxide emissions are produced. Growing demand for fresh food has led to a preference for quicker transition methods thereby decreasing emissions. Sea transport has proven to be hazardous however, air freight produces 50 times more CO₂ than marine shipping (Barberi et al., 2021).

Future perspectives

The supply chain has greater social and environmental impacts compared to manufacturing operations due to extended networks and diverse practices. The effects of supply chains on the air, land, water, biodiversity, and geological resources account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions and more than 90% of the consequences on other resources. However, it’s equally important to consider the effects of developing a more localized or decentralized food supply chain (Almena et al., 2018). The “triple-bottom-line” strategy can be put forth, considering social and environmental considerations in addition to profit and loss. Economic growth, which entails increasing profit and lowering loss, is the primary goal of a supply chain, but the triple bottom-line method calls for a balance among the three goals. In the twenty-first century, more companies are implementing sustainable supply chain methods. According to research, approximately 75% of the major international businesses have switched to sustainable supply chains from their old ones. The Intelligent Supply Chain (ISC) platform from OPTEL provides a few crucial traceability solutions, enabling supply chains that are safer, more environmentally friendly, and more productive. To obtain real-time data to record and allow, businesses can follow and trace each step of a product's journey from its initial ingredients to the end user. Apart from this, the digitally operated food supply chain will be reinforced, and statistical tools will help validate the findings, which will be further used in food supply chain operations. The food supply chain should incorporate Internet of Things (IoT) technology because it has the potential to be used as a sensing technology for monitoring and gathering data from multiple sources using different types of sensors (such as temperature, humidity, gas, light, motion, and location) (Han et al., 2021). Investigating alternate uses for non-edible food products, such as livestock feed or manure, might be a significant addition to reducing the amount of waste and carbon footprint.

Abbreviations

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

kV/cm

Kilovolt per Centimetres

AFSC

Agricultural Food Supply Chain

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

CO₂

Carbon Dioxide

TP

Thermal Pasteurisation

CH₄

Methane

HPP

High-Pressure Processing

N₂O

Nitrous Oxide

CP

Cold Plasma

HFCs

Hydrofluorocarbons

ACP

Atmospheric Cold Plasma

PFCs

Perfluorocarbons

LCA

Life Cycle Assessment

SF₆

Sulphur Hexafluoride

PO₄

Phosphate

J

Joule

SO₂

Sulfur Dioxide

AI

Artificial Intelligence

PO₄ P-lim/t

Eutrophication Potential

kJ

Kilo Joules

kg SO₂ eq./t

Aquatic Acidification

CO₂eq

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

kg CO₂ eq./t

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per Kilogram

GWP

Global Warming Potential

EW

Electrolysed Water

RBP

Ration Balancing Program

CIP

Clean-in-Place

kPa

Kilopascal

ppm

Parts Per Million

kJ/kg

Kilojoules per Kilogram

EAE

Enzyme Assisted Extraction

kg

Kilogram

MAE

Microwave Assisted Extraction

kJ/kg°C

Kilojoule per kilogram per Celsius

kHz

Kilohertz

J/g

Joules per gram

MPa

Mega Pascal

IQF

Individual Quick Freezing

GRAS

Generally Recognised as Safe

SEM

Scanning Electron Microscopy

HPE

High Pressure Assisted extraction

TC-CO₂

Transcritical Carbon Dioxide

CO₂e

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

SC-CO₂

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide

ISC

Intelligent Supply Chain

PEF

Pulsed Electric Filed

IOT

Internet of Things

Funding

This research is funded by the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (D No.1/Eat Right India/ SBCD/FSSAI 2020–21.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors affirm that they have no known financial or interpersonal conflicts that would have appeared to impact the research presented in this study.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publication

The participant has consented to the submission of the review article to the journal.