2.2.7. Gluten-Free Breadsticks LCI

To obtain the experimental gluten-free breadsticks, 500 g of rice flour, 500 g of corn starch, 550 mL of warm water (26 ◦C), 100 g of sunflower oil, 15 g of guar gum, 15 g of psyllium fiber, 30 g of sugar, 18 g of salt, and 40 g of compressed yeast were used as the basic formulation. For the preparation of the control samples, the dry ingredients were pre-blended (0.3 kW) for 2 min to ensure a proper homogenization and then mixed with sugar, salt, and yeast—previously dissolved in aliquots of water—and 100 g of sunflower oil for 13 min by using a professional mixer (0.3 kW). The resulting dough, after a leavening phase of 30 min (33 ◦C), was divided in 62 pieces of 28 g each and subjected to a second leavening (30 min; 33 ◦C). Then, the breadstick samples were baked (0.53 kW; 180 ◦C) for 13 min, rested for 30 min, and baked again for 22 min. Differently from the control breadsticks, the enriched ones were formulated using 1 g of PE from OMWW or OL (GFB + OMWW PE, GFB + OLE). Input and output data related to this preparation are reported in Table 9.


**Table 9.** Input, output data, and allocated quantity per FU (300 g), related to gluten-free breadsticks process.

#### *2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)*

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) translates emissions and resource extractions into a limited number of environmental impact scores by means of characterization factors. These factors convert the data from LCI to the common unit of category indicator. According to Goedkoop et al. [29], the Recipe 2016 Midpoint (H) v1.04 method was used to assess the potential environmental impact. The LCIA data results were proposed using the following impact categories: Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC). Ecoinvent 3.6 (allocation, cut-off by classification) and World Food LCA Database 3.5 were used as databases for the inventory phase, SimaPro version 9.1.1. (PRè Sustainability, Amersfoort, The Netherlands) was used to assess the environmental impacts of PE extractions, PE encapsulation, and food preparations.

#### **3. Results**

The PE extractions, PE encapsulation process, and their use in four food formulation will be analyzed separately in the following sections.

#### *3.1. PE Extraction and OLE Encapsulation Impact Assessment*

Table 10 represents the overall potential environmental impacts while Figures 2–4 report the contribution analysis related to the different PE extractions and encapsulation. According to the FU used for the extraction and encapsulation processes, OMWW PE

represents the least environmental impactful extraction technique (6.69 times less). The encapsulation of OLE, to obtain eOLE, represents a 10 times more impactful process than the environmental impact of the extraction of 1 g TPC contained in OLE.

**Impact Category Unit OMWW PE OLE eOLE** GW <sup>1</sup> kg CO2 eq 4.10 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 2.83 7.84 OD <sup>2</sup> kg CFC11 eq 3.32 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>7</sup> 2.34 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>6</sup> 1.63 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>5</sup> IR <sup>3</sup> kBq 60Co eq 4.11 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 3.17 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 7.73 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> OF-HH <sup>4</sup> kg NOx eq 7.11 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>4</sup> 4.92 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 1.57 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> PM <sup>5</sup> kg PM2.5 eq 4.52 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>4</sup> 3.29 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 9.97 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> OF-TE <sup>6</sup> kg NOx eq 7.40 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>4</sup> 5.00 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 1.60 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> TA <sup>7</sup> kg SO2 eq 1.38 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 1.01 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 3.29 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> FE <sup>8</sup> kg P eq 9.98 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>5</sup> 7.16 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>4</sup> 2.08 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> ME <sup>9</sup> kg N eq 9.38 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>6</sup> 5.48 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>5</sup> 4.75 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> TE <sup>10</sup> kg 1,4-DCB 4.44 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 2.88 11.1 FRE <sup>11</sup> kg 1,4-DCB 1.00 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 6.98 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 3.43 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> MECO <sup>12</sup> kg 1,4-DCB 1.30 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 9.05 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 2.79 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> HCT <sup>13</sup> kg 1,4-DCB 8.38 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 6.11 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 1.71 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> HNCT <sup>14</sup> kg 1,4-DCB 2.02 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 1.43 5.98 LU <sup>15</sup> m2a crop eq 1.58 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 1.08 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 3.61 MRS <sup>16</sup> kg Cu eq 4.16 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>4</sup> 2.56 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 2.00 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> FRS <sup>17</sup> kg oil eq 1.29 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 8.37 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup> 2.25 WC <sup>18</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>3</sup> 5.80 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>3</sup> 4.72 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>2</sup> 1.20 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup>−<sup>1</sup>

**Table 10.** Environmental impacts of PE extractions and encapsulation processes.

<sup>1</sup> Global warming. <sup>2</sup> Stratospheric ozone depletion. <sup>3</sup> Ionizing radiation. <sup>4</sup> Ozone formation, human health. <sup>5</sup> Fine particulate matter formation. <sup>6</sup> Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems. <sup>7</sup> Terrestrial acidification. <sup>8</sup> Freshwater eutrophication. <sup>9</sup> Marine eutrophication. <sup>10</sup> Terrestrial ecotoxicity. <sup>11</sup> Freshwater ecotoxicity. <sup>12</sup> Marine ecotoxicity. <sup>13</sup> Human carcinogenic toxicity. <sup>14</sup> Human non-carcinogenic toxicity. <sup>15</sup> Land use. <sup>16</sup> Mineral resource scarcity. <sup>17</sup> Fossil resource scarcity. <sup>18</sup> Water consumption.

**Figure 2.** Hotspot deriving from contribution analysis related to OMWW PE. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 3.** Hotspot deriving from contribution analysis related to OLE. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 4.** Hotspot deriving from contribution analysis related to eOLE. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

To highlight hotspots, details regarding the contribution analysis of the different factors influencing extraction and encapsulation processes were reported.

#### 3.1.1. Contribution Analysis of OMWW PE Impact Assessment

Factors influencing the OMWW PE extraction were reported in Figure 2. The factor electricity reached the highest values for all the impact categories from the lowest value reached in LU (67%) to the highest one reached in IR impact category (97%). This large contribution depends on the energy demand from the equipment necessary for the extraction of phenols from olive oil wastewater; the major contribution comes from the evaporator, which absorbs 86% of the overall energy consumption. Despite the tiny quantity used and allocated to this extraction process, the contribution of hexane covers an average weight among impact categories equal to 8% and thus represents the second contribution factor. The waste chemicals factor, which refers to the waste management of chemicals, represents the third contribution of this extraction technique, contributing with an average weight among impact categories of about 3%.

As for the OMWW PE, also for the OLE process (Figure 3), the electricity contributes mainly to all the impact categories with an average contribution of about 97%. This high level of contribution is directly linked to the energy consumption of the freeze dryer (97% of the total energy consumption). The second contribution factor is identified in the paper filters used, even if this factor has a contribution of about 4% among impact categories

Differently from the two extraction processes previously analyzed, Figure 4 shows a fragmented contribution analysis of the eOLE reporting different contribution factors. The highest contribution of the whole process comes from the OLE production process, which quantified the related weight of this factor equal to 50% among impact categories. The second contribution factor is the sunflower oil with an average weight among impact categories equal to 35%. This factor shows higher contribution in those impact categories related to the cultivation phases (ME 97%; LU 85%). The factor electricity contributes less compared to the other processes analyzed, but it anyway covers an average contribution of about 12%. In this case, the stirring plate requires 56% of the total energy consumption due to the time of usage, while the freeze dryer requires only 37% of the total energy consumption.

#### 3.1.2. Vegan Mayonnaises Impact Assessment

The environmental impact comparison related to the formulation of 350 g of vegan mayonnaise and 350 g of enriched vegan mayonnaise is reported in Figure 5, while the comparison of environmental impact of the two formulations normalized to the shelf-life parameters is reported in Figure 6. The environmental impact results from these two analyses and TPC normalization factor was reported also in Table S1.

**Figure 5.** Environmental impact comparison of a vegan mayonnaise (350 g) vs. PE enriched product. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 6.** Environmental impact comparison of a vegan mayonnaise (350 g) vs. PE enriched product normalized to oxidation induction time. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

According to the comparison of the commercial unit (350 g of product for each formulation), the enriched product reports higher environmental impacts in most of the impact categories. As reported in Figure 2, the high demand of electricity required for the OMWW PE process can be identified in the differences between the traditional mayonnaise and the enriched one. The average percentage of responsibility related to the OMWW PE in the enriched formulation weights of about 30% (as reported in Table 11). The gap between the two products goes from a lower value equal to 0% in ME and LU (related mainly to the field activities of sunflower oil) to the higher value reached in IR, which counts 73% less in traditional formulation. Considering only the commercial unit, the traditional mayonnaise shows better environmental impact with respect to the enriched one (30% more convenient).


**Table 11.** Mean and standard deviation among the impact categories of extraction and encapsulation processes impact on the whole food chain.

Different considerations must be done according to the estimated shelf-life values quantified in Table 1. The traditional mayonnaise, which claims the worst technological performances (half induction period) with respect to the enriched one, reports different results in Figure 6.

The induction days parameter was used to compare the potential environmental impact of the two preparations. The technological characteristics of the enriched mayonnaise (1 induction day) counted double values with respect to the traditional mayonnaise (0.5 induction days). Considering the worst-case scenario, the induction day cannot be identified

as a representative parameter for a normalization of the environmental impact respect to the oxidation induction time. Despite this, potential food waste has been identified as a parameter for the technological performance of the two food preparations. Considering the potential shelf life, the enriched mayonnaise, which claims a double induction period with respect to the traditional one, reports an overall impact benefit avoiding food loss of about 23%.

No considerations shall be done for the nutritional parameter, the gap of TPC between the two products was quantified in 413 times (Table 1). Then, the convenience of choosing the enriched mayonnaise is directly quantified in 413 times.

#### 3.1.3. Salad Dressing Impact Assessment

The salad dressing shows a simple formulation, which does not require particular ingredients or transformation, highlighting a large benefit in choosing the traditional salad dressing rather than the enriched one if considering the commercial unit (135 g) (Figure 7 and Table S2).

**Figure 7.** Environmental impact comparison of salad dressing (135 g) vs. PE enriched product. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

The use of eOLE in the enriched salad dressing formulation represents a high risk for the environment if compared to the traditional salad dressing due to the simpleness of the formulation. The eOLE as an ingredient (as reported in Table 11) shows an overall impact among impact categories equal to 73.51%. The high level of contribution of the eOLE in the enriched product gives the salad dressing + eOLE 72% more impact than the traditional product. Opposite consideration shall be done if the TPC is considered (Table 1): in this case, the traditional formulation does not result in convenient with respect to the enriched one, showing a higher environmental impact of about 96%.

#### 3.1.4. Biscuits Impact Assessment

The comparisons of the two biscuits formulations are reported in Figure 8 (considering 160 g commercial unit), in Figure 9 (considering oxidation induction time parameter), and in Figure 10 (considering TPC parameter). All the environmental impacts related to the three normalization parameters are reported together in Table S3.

**Figure 8.** Environmental impact comparison of biscuits (160 g) vs. PE enriched product. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 9.** Environmental impact comparison of biscuits vs. PE enriched product normalized to potential shelf-life. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 10.** Environmental impact comparison of a vegan mayonnaise vs. PE enriched product normalized to TPC. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

As for the salad dressing, also for the biscuits, which represent a more complex formulation, the high energy demand coming from the OLE extraction and encapsulation process shows higher environmental impacts for the enriched formulations in all the impact categories. The eOLE ingredient required for the commercial unit is about 0.55 g, which represents a very tiny quantity but reports a high level of contribution as reported in Table 12 (56% among impact categories).


**Table 12.** Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to use of phenolic extract deriving from the olive oil milling process in food chain.

> The comparison of the two biscuits formulations (reported in Figure 8) considering a 160 g commercial unit showed that the enriched biscuits formulation impact 56% more with respect to the traditional one (average value among impact categories).

Considering the oxidation induction time parameter (Figure 9), which implies a delta between the two formulations equal to 1.3559, the traditional formulation reports again better environmental impact in all the impact categories (41% less with respect the enriched one). The better behavior of the traditional biscuits is largely highlighted in those impact categories that are directly linked to the energy consumption as IR, HNCT, HCT, and FRS (62% average benefit), while the lowest advantages in choosing the traditional biscuits can be seen in those impact categories linked to the agricultural activities as OD, ME, and LU (15% average benefit).

As reported in Table 6, also considering the TPC normalization parameter, the benefit of the traditional biscuits is confirmed again even if it decreased with respect to the commercial functional unit comparison (37% less). Even if an increase of the relative environmental impact can be registered due to a 1.45 gap (Table 1) between traditional and enriched formulation, the enriched product represents the worst product.

#### 3.1.5. Gluten-Free Breadsticks Impact Assessment

The gluten-free breadsticks formulation comparisons are reported in Figure 11 (considering a 300 g commercial unit), in Figure 12 (considering oxidation induction time parameter) and in Figure 13 (considering TPC parameter). All the environmental impacts related to the three normalization parameters are reported together in Table S4.

**Figure 11.** Environmental impact comparison of gluten-free breadsticks (300 g) vs. PE enriched product. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 12.** Environmental impact comparison of gluten-free breadsticks vs. PE-enriched product normalized to potential shelf life. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

**Figure 13.** Environmental impact comparison of gluten-free breadsticks vs. PE-enriched product normalized to TPC. Global warming (GW), Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone formation, human health (OF-HH), Fine particulate matter formation (PM), Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (OF-TE), Terrestrial acidification (TA), Freshwater eutrophication (FE), Marine eutrophication (ME), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Freshwater ecotoxicity (FRE), Marine ecotoxicity (MECO), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT), Land use (LU), Mineral resource scarcity (MRS), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Water consumption (WC).

According to the comparison of the commercial unit (300 g of product for each formulation), the OLE-enriched product reports higher environmental impacts in all the impact categories. As reported in Figure 10, the OMWW PE-enriched product reports lower environmental impact with respect to the OLE-enriched one (17% less on average) but higher with respect to the traditional formulation (1% more on average). The average percentage of responsibility related to the OLE in the enriched formulation was a weight of about 17% (as reported in Table 11) while the responsibility related to the OMWW PE in the enriched formulation weight was less than 1% (as reported in Table 11). The gap among

the three formulations is highlighted majorly in impact categories directly related to the energy consumption as IR, HNCT, HCT, and FRS where the OLE ingredient has a higher contribution (as reported in Table 11). A consideration regarding only the commercial unit puts in first place the traditional GFB, in second place GFB + OMWWPE, and in third place the OLE enriched one.

Different results are deductible according to the estimated potential shelf life and TPC parameters as reported in Table 7. The overall benefit of potential shelf-life extension enriching the GFB control with OMWW PE can be identified in a potential environmental impact reduction of about 46%. The traditional GFB and the GFB + OLE cannot be defined as the worst solution, both report in some impact categories the higher environmental impact.

Considering the TPC normalization parameter and taking into consideration the average impact among the different impact categories, the differentiation made for the commercial unit cannot be carried out; in some impact categories, the highest level of impact is reached by the GFB control, and in others, the highest level is reached by GFB + OLE. A consideration that should be carried out is that the GFB + OLE on average represents the higher environmental impact formulation, representing the worst choice in most of the impact categories. The choice between the GFB control and GFB + OMWW PE should be linked to the impact category taken into consideration. An overview of the results obtained, considering all three parameters, identifies as the best choice the GFB + OMWW PE, even if in some cases, it means that it is not the best option among the three.

Overall, the results obtained also showed the impact of phenols extracts on the food preparations process considering mean and standard deviation among the impact categories (Table 11). The impact of PE extraction/encapsulation on the whole food chain ranged from 0.71% to 73.51%. This wide range is due to the ingredients and operations provided in the preparation processes. Since the production process consists of a simple formulation in term of (i) ingredients (low quantity and low processed products) and/or (ii) process (few and low energy demand operations), the impact of polyphenols extraction process and encapsulation reached on the whole production process impact a percentage of 73.51%. On the contrary, for those complex preparations, as for the gluten-free breadsticks, the operations relating to phenols extraction process and/or encapsulation weight on the whole process only for 17.72% and 0.71% for GFB + OLE and GFB + OMWW PE respectively, while the impact of phenols extracts on vegan mayonnaise preparation reaches 30.90%.

#### **4. Discussion**

The results obtained show that the extraction and encapsulation processes, characterized by low production yields, energy-intensive operations, and the partial use of chemical reagents has a non-negligible environmental impact. In detail, to contextualize the results obtained, it is important to analyze the whole supply chain up to the finished product. Even in other critical sectors, such as the plastic packaging field, analyzing only the impact of the material and the production process, the environmental sustainability results are very low [30].

If other aspects were also considered in evaluating the environmental impact, such as the extension of the potential shelf life and therefore the reduction of food waste rather than the entire supply chain [31], the packaging environmental impact would have another weight on the whole supply chain. In this work, after calculating the impact of the polyphenols extraction and encapsulation process from olive oil mill waste, the impact of the extraction process in the food chain was considered, in particular for the production of vegan mayonnaise, biscuits, salad dressing, and gluten-free breadsticks.

The impact of polyphenols extraction/encapsulation on the whole food chain presents very different results based on the operations provided in the formulations process. Considering the advantages in terms of technological and nutritional aspects in the use of enriched

formulations, the weight of the polyphenols extraction process and/or encapsulation falls exponentially.

Considering that the LCA evaluation in this work was carried out based on lab-scale data, the impact of the polyphenols extraction process and encapsulation could be reduced in a view of a scale-up process. In fact, the development of pilot plants for the polyphenols extraction and encapsulation within a real chain of reuse of olive oil mill waste would allow the use of more efficient systems and therefore reduce the environmental impact as well as the development of a circular economy model. The environmental impact of the polyphenol extraction and encapsulation process, which for some food preparation showed high contribution, if transferred to a wide context, would allow economic advantages in the valorization of the olive oil supply chain, cancelling out the environmental impact of the polyphenols extraction and encapsulation process from waste.

Nowadays, the olive oil mill by-products are treated with a high energy demand process to transform these products into a second life product (i.e., from pomace to pomace oil, from stone to heat) identifying in the waste product as a high-level product. Other activities are simply catalogued as waste management processes, the output of the oil mill as wastewater, and leaves and dust are treated for composting or fertilizing fields, representing in any case a cost and not a profit for the mill. The revalorization of the waste products coming from the oil milling activities can rearrange all the outputs' quality level, identifying a profit in waste.

This work should be the basis for future research focused on the environmental impact comparison between the use of phenolic extract deriving from olive oil mill waste and the packaging operations to improve shelf life performance in food chain. The analysis could include different scenarios:


In order to summarize the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to the use of polyphenols extract deriving from olive oil milling waste in the food chain promoting the circular economy, a SWOT table was created (Table 12).
