Integrating Life Cycle Assessment in Innovative Berry Processing with Edible Coating and Osmotic Dehydration

Academic Editor: Angela Zinnai Received: 5 March 2025 Revised: 13 March 2025 Accepted: 25 March 2025 Published: 27 March 2025 Citation: Mari, A.; Kekes, T.; Boukouvalas, C.; Krokida, M. Integrating Life Cycle Assessment in Innovative Berry Processing with Edible Coating and Osmotic Dehydration. Foods 2025,14, 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/ foods14071167 Correction Statement: This article has been republished with a minor change. The change does not affect the scientific content of the article and further details are available within the backmatter of the website version of this article. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Integrating Life Cycle Assessment in Innovative Berry Processing with Edible Coating and Osmotic Dehydration Alexandra Mari *, Tryfon Kekes, Christos Boukouvalas and Magdalini Krokida School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +30-2107723149 Abstract: This study presents a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a berry production system using osmotic dehydration and edible coating to extend the shelf life and improve the nutritional value. The goal is to evaluate environmental impacts, identify hotspots, and propose improvements. Osmotic dehydration is the main contributor to environmental impact, particularly due to the energy and resources required by apple juice as the osmotic agent. It contributes up to 0.64 kg CO 2 eq. per kg of blueberries, 1.36 kg CO 2 eq. per kg of raspberries, and 0.66 kg CO 2 eq. per kg of strawberries. The edible coating, however, has minimal environmental impact due to its low energy consumption and biodegradable materials. Packaging has a lower carbon footprint but contributes more to fossil fuel depletion and human toxicity. Raspberries show the highest human health impact (3.5 ×10−6DALY/kg) and ecosystem impact (9.5 ×10−8species.yr/kg) , followed by strawberries (1.78 ×10−6DALY/kg, 4.97 ×10−8species.yr/kg ) and blueberries ( 1.7 ×10−6DALY/kg, 5.1 ×10−8species.yr/kg ), highlighting the greater environmental and health costs of raspberries. Despite the environmental burden of osmotic dehydration, it offers economic benefits by extending the shelf life, reducing losses, improving supply chain efficiency, and enhancing product quality, which leads to higher prices and profit margins. The study concludes that, while the environmental impacts of osmotic dehydration should be optimized, its economic and logistical benefits make it a promising preservation solution. Further research into eco-friendly practices is recommended to reduce ecological costs while maintaining commercial advantages. Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment; berries processing; sustainability; osmotic dehydration; edible coating 1. Introduction Modern lifestyles are intricately linked to dietary habits, with fruits and vegetables being integral components of a healthy diet due to their abundance of bioactive compounds [ 1 ]. Berries are a valuable component of a healthy diet, known for their rich nutritional profile, including essential vitamins (C and K), minerals (manganese and potassium), and bioactive compounds such as flavonoids and anthocyanins [ 2 ]. These phytochemicals offer potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits, supporting heart health, brain function, and reducing the risk of chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer [ 3 , 4 ]. Due to their low-calorie content and natural sweetness, berries are increasingly popular among health-conscious consumers [5,6]. The shelf life of berries is a crucial factor in ensuring their availability and minimizing losses throughout the food supply chain. Due to their high perishability and rapid deterioration, berries are particularly susceptible to spoilage, which leads to significant food Foods 2025,14, 1167 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14071167 Foods 2025,14, 1167 2 of 17 waste, especially during the transportation and storage stages [ 7 ]. The seasonal nature of berry production often results in periods of oversupply, which, if not efficiently managed, can lead to excess product that spoils before reaching consumers [ 8 , 9 ]. The losses incurred not only affect the economic viability of berry producers but also contribute to the broader environmental issue of food waste [ 10 , 11 ]. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 13.8% of global food production is lost annually before it even reaches consumers, with fruits and vegetables being particularly vulnerable, experiencing a loss rate of 21.6% [ 12 ]. This loss has profound economic implications, particularly in the berry industry, where oversupply and inadequate storage systems can drastically reduce profitability [13]. To mitigate these losses, various preservation techniques have been developed to extend the shelf life of berries while maintaining their quality and nutritional value. The ability to extend the freshness of berries provides significant economic benefits, reducing the volume of product waste and improving supply chain efficiency [ 5 , 14 ]. Preservation methods such as osmotic dehydration and edible coatings are gaining attention for their effectiveness in prolonging berry freshness and minimizing spoilage. Osmotic dehydration works by immersing berries in hypertonic solutions, which reduces the moisture content and inhibits microbial growth, thus slowing down spoilage and extending the shelf life [ 15 ]. Edible coatings, typically made from natural biopolymers such as polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids, create a protective barrier that limits moisture loss, prevents oxygen ingress, and reduces microbial contamination [ 16 ]. These coatings help maintain the quality and texture of berries, extending their freshness during storage and transportation [ 17 , 18 ]. Additionally, the extended shelf life made possible by these methods not only reduces food waste but also improves the overall efficiency of the berry supply chain, allowing for better inventory management, fewer transport-related losses, and greater profitability for producers [19]. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) plays a crucial role in evaluating the environmental impacts of these preservation methods [ 20 ]. By examining the entire lifecycle of a product or process—from raw material extraction to disposal—LCA provides valuable insights into the resource use, energy consumption, and emissions associated with different preservation strategies [ 21 ]. In the case of osmotic dehydration and edible coatings, LCA can help determine their environmental sustainability by comparing their ecological footprint and identifying opportunities for improvement [ 22 ]. This comprehensive evaluation enables the identification of the most sustainable practices within the food industry, particularly in the context of berry preservation. The aim of this study is to conduct an LCA of sustainable techniques for preserving the quality and extending the shelf life of berries. Specifically, the research analyzes the environmental impacts of osmotic dehydration and edible coatings as methods to prolong the shelf life of berries, with the primary goal being to assess the feasibility and sustainability of these technologies. This study takes a comprehensive approach to evaluating these preservation methods from an environmental perspective, focusing on their long-term sustainability and potential to reduce the ecological footprint of berry preservation. 2. Materials and Methods Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was performed following the guidelines outlined in ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 [ 23 ], and it consists of four steps: (i) Goal & Scope Definition, (ii) Inventory Analysis, (iii) Impact Assessment, and (iv) Interpretation. Foods 2025,14, 1167 3 of 17 2.1. Goal and Scope The Goal of the LCA analysis was to determine the effect of the implementation of mild processing methods, such as osmotic dehydration and edible coatings, in the development of innovative berries with an increased shelf-life and high nutritional value. A gate-to-gate approach was selected for the evaluation of the environmental footprint of processed berries. Specifically, the system boundaries encompass production processes from berries pickup to processing and packaging. The data utilized in this study were sourced from the GaBi professional and Ecoinvent databases, which pertain to the geographical area of the European Union 28 (EU-28). All the studies and data collected are relevant to the past five years. The Scope of the LCA analysis involves defining the goals and boundaries of the study, collecting data on resource inputs and environmental outputs throughout all stages of the life cycle, evaluating potential environmental impacts, and interpreting the results to guide decision-making and foster sustainability. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was performed following the recommendations proposed by the ISO 14040 recommendations series (14040:2006 and 14044:2006) [ 23 ]. ReCiPe 2016 (H, hierarchist) was selected as a method to perform the impact assessment, with its main objective being the transformation of Life Cycle Inventory results into a limited number of environmental impact scores using characterization factors. Finally, GaBi ts software (v10.6.2.9, Sphera Solutions GmbH, Echterdingen, Stuttgart, Germany) was used for the calculation of the impact categories [24]. The ReCiPe 2016 methodology defines impact indicators at two levels: midpoint and endpoint indicators. Midpoint indicators focus on specific environmental impacts, providing detailed insights into areas such as climate change, particulate matter formation, and resource depletion. These indicators cover issues like climate change (with and without biogenic carbon), particulate matter, mineral resource depletion, freshwater consumption and ecotoxicity, eutrophication, human toxicity (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic), ionizing radiation, land use, marine ecotoxicity, photochemical ozone formation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and terrestrial acidification and ecotoxicity. Endpoint indicators aggregate the midpoint indicators to simplify result interpretation. However, as aggregation increases, so does the uncertainty of the results. Endpoint indicators offer a broader overview of environmental impacts, assessing damage to human health (measured in Disability-Adjusted Life Years, DALY), ecosystems (measured in species.yr), and resource availability (measured in monetary terms, $). 2.1.1. Product Systems and System’s Boundaries The evaluation was conducted on the innovative berry production line with extended shelf life. The system studied includes the process of receiving, processing, and packaging berries in an innovative production line, as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, compared to conventional berries that are received and directly packaged, processing methods of osmotic dehydration and edible coating have been added to the production phase. Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 2.1. Goal and Scope The Goal of the LCA analysis was to determine the effect of the implementation of mild processing methods, such as osmotic dehydration and edible coatings, in the development of innovative berries with an increased shelf-life and high nutritional value. A gate-to-gate approach was selected for the evaluation of the environmental footprint of processed berries. Specifically, the system boundaries encompass production processes from berries pickup to processing and packaging. The data utilized in this study were sourced from the GaBi professional and Ecoinvent databases, which pertain to the geographical area of the European Union 28 (EU-28). All the studies and data collected are relevant to the past five years. The Scope of the LCA analysis involves defining the goals and boundaries of the study, collecting data on resource inputs and environmental outputs throughout all stages of the life cycle, evaluating potential environmental impacts, and interpreting the results to guide decision-making and foster sustainability. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was performed following the recommendations proposed by the ISO 14040 recommendations series (14040:2006 and 14044:2006) [23]. ReCiPe 2016 (H, hierarchist) was selected as a method to perform the impact assessment, with its main objective being the transformation of Life Cycle Inventory results into a limited number of environmental impact scores using characterization factors. Finally, GaBi ts software (v10.6.2.9, Sphera Solutions GmbH, Echterdingen, Stuttgart, Germany) was used for the calculation of the impact categories [24]. The ReCiPe 2016 methodology defines impact indicators at two levels: midpoint and endpoint indicators. Midpoint indicators focus on specific environmental impacts, providing detailed insights into areas such as climate change, particulate matter formation, and resource depletion. These indicators cover issues like climate change (with and without biogenic carbon), particulate matter, mineral resource depletion, freshwater consumption and ecotoxicity, eutrophication, human toxicity (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic), ionizing radiation, land use, marine ecotoxicity, photochemical ozone formation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and terrestrial acidification and ecotoxicity. Endpoint indicators aggregate the midpoint indicators to simplify result interpretation. However, as aggregation increases, so does the uncertainty of the results. Endpoint indicators offer a broader overview of environmental impacts, assessing damage to human health (measured in Disability-Adjusted Life Years, DALY), ecosystems (measured in species.yr), and resource availability (measured in monetary terms, $). 2.1.1. Product Systems and System’s Boundaries The evaluation was conducted on the innovative berry production line with extended shelf life. The system studied includes the process of receiving, processing, and packaging berries in an innovative production line, as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, compared to conventional berries that are received and directly packaged, processing methods of osmotic dehydration and edible coating have been added to the production phase. Figure 1. Flow chart of the innovative production of berries. Foods 2025,14, 1167 4 of 17 2.1.2. Process Analysis Figure 2provides a graphical representation of the production chain, illustrating the process from start to finish. It begins with the addition of freshly harvested berries into the osmotic solution, followed by their immersion in the edible coating solution, and concludes with the packaging of the berries as the final product. Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 Figure 1. Flow chart of the innovative production of berries. 2.1.2. Process Analysis Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the production chain, illustrating the process from start to finish. It begins with the addition of freshly harvested berries into the osmotic solution, followed by their immersion in the edible coating solution, and concludes with the packaging of the berries as the final product. Figure 2. Process of the innovative production of berries. Osmotic Dehydration Osmotic dehydration is a natural and mild method of removing water from food using osmotic solutions. Based on the principle of osmosis, the process exploits the movement of water from a region of low solute concentration to a region of high solute concentration through a semipermeable membrane [18]. In the osmotic dehydration of berries, apple juice at 42°Brix has been selected as the optimum solution, after an optimization conducted in the laboratory regarding the dehydration kinetics, the quality characteristics of the final product, and the shelf life [25]. The duration of dehydration varies between the different types, with blueberries and raspberries at 360 min and strawberries at 200 min to achieve the optimal result. The process is carried out at 40 °C, maintaining the nutritional value and organoleptic characteristics of the berries and making it suitable for industrial application. This method helps preserve the natural texture, aroma, and flavor of the berries, as it does not require high temperatures or mechanical stresses that could damage the cell walls [26]. At the same time, osmotic dehydration reduces the need for preservatives and extensive processing, making the berries healthier and more appealing to consumers seeking naturally processed products. Finally, this method offers economic and environmental benefits, as it reduces energy and resource consumption, contributing to a sustainable and efficient production of products. Edible Coating Edible coating is an innovative technology applied in food processing, aimed at improving their quality and shelf life. This process involves coating the berries with an edible film made from natural materials such as polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids [27]. Edible coatings are designed to create a protective barrier that reduces moisture loss and prevents oxygen ingress while simultaneously protecting the berries from microbial contamination [28]. The edible coating was selected based on the evaluation of various coatings conducted by Mari et al. (2024) [29]. In their study, the coating derived from the protein of Chlorella vulgaris was identified as the most effective for enhancing the shelf life of berries. The system studied includes the process of receiving, processing, and packaging berries in an innovative production line, as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, compared to conventional berries that are received and directly packaged, processing methods of osmotic dehydration and edible coating have been added to the production phase. Packaging The berries were packaged using High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, selected for its durability and protective qualities. The packaging was designed to minimize Figure 2. Process of the innovative production of berries. Osmotic Dehydration Osmotic dehydration is a natural and mild method of removing water from food using osmotic solutions. Based on the principle of osmosis, the process exploits the movement of water from a region of low solute concentration to a region of high solute concentration through a semipermeable membrane [ 18 ]. In the osmotic dehydration of berries, apple juice at 42 ◦ Brix has been selected as the optimum solution, after an optimization conducted in the laboratory regarding the dehydration kinetics, the quality characteristics of the final product, and the shelf life [ 25 ]. The duration of dehydration varies between the different types, with blueberries and raspberries at 360 min and strawberries at 200 min to achieve the optimal result. The process is carried out at 40 ◦ C, maintaining the nutritional value and organoleptic characteristics of the berries and making it suitable for industrial application. This method helps preserve the natural texture, aroma, and flavor of the berries, as it does not require high temperatures or mechanical stresses that could damage the cell walls [ 26 ]. At the same time, osmotic dehydration reduces the need for preservatives and extensive processing, making the berries healthier and more appealing to consumers seeking naturally processed products. Finally, this method offers economic and environmental benefits, as it reduces energy and resource consumption, contributing to a sustainable and efficient production of products. Edible Coating Edible coating is an innovative technology applied in food processing, aimed at improving their quality and shelf life. This process involves coating the berries with an edible film made from natural materials such as polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids [ 27 ]. Edible coatings are designed to create a protective barrier that reduces moisture loss and prevents oxygen ingress while simultaneously protecting the berries from microbial contamination [ 28 ]. The edible coating was selected based on the evaluation of various coatings conducted by Mari et al. (2024) [ 29 ]. In their study, the coating derived from the protein of Chlorella vulgaris was identified as the most effective for enhancing the shelf life of berries. The system studied includes the process of receiving, processing, and packaging berries in an innovative production line, as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, compared to conventional berries that are received and directly packaged, processing methods of osmotic dehydration and edible coating have been added to the production phase. Packaging The berries were packaged using High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, selected for its durability and protective qualities. The packaging was designed to minimize physical damage during handling, transportation, and storage. HDPE serves as an effective barrier Foods 2025,14, 1167 5 of 17 against moisture, oxygen, and contaminants, helping to maintain the freshness, appearance, and quality of the berries over time. The material’s structural integrity ensures that the berries remain intact, reducing the risk of bruising or other damage [ 11 ]. The packaging was sealed to prevent moisture loss and exposure to air, thereby slowing down the deterioration process. HDPE’s transparent nature allows for easy visibility of the product, aiding in consumer decision-making while also providing a stable surface for labeling and branding. Furthermore, the choice of HDPE was based on its cost-effectiveness and widely recognized performance in extending the shelf life for perishable items [ 28 – 31 ].This packaging method is commonly used for fresh produce due to its effectiveness in protecting the product and facilitating handling and transport. However, the environmental impact of HDPE packaging was also considered, with a focus on exploring more sustainable alternatives for future applications. 2.1.3. Functional Unit The functional unit for the berry systems is defined as 1 kg (1 kg), while an analysis was also conducted using 1 euro (EUR) of revenue as a functional unit. 2.1.4. Assumptions and Limitations The data used for berry production in both cases is derived from experimental studies and supplemented with literature reviews to ensure accuracy and represent the current industry conditions. This study primarily aims to assess the environmental footprint of the proposed methods and evaluate their feasibility for managing solid and liquid waste. Additionally, energy consumption is carefully considered, particularly in the osmotic dehydration process, where the highest energy losses occur. 2.1.5. Data Requirements For the collection of data and the establishment of the inventory, values were obtained from experiments conducted by our research team between 2021 and 2024. These experimental data were combined with relevant literature data, and all figures were appropriately adjusted and verified through direct communication within the team. 2.2. Life Cycle Inventory The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) links processes with quantitative data based on the selected functional unit (1 kg of final packaged berries). Tables 1–3present the input and output data for each process involved in berry processing, as depicted in Figure 2, for each berry. Literature and experimental data were used as a reference for data collection and inventory establishment, with appropriate adjustments made based on the specific context. These numbers were verified through careful review and consultation with relevant sources. Table 1. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for innovative blueberries, expressed on a unit basis (1 kg of final packaged berries) of the final blueberry product. Process Flow Quantity Osmotic dehydration [In] Blueberries (kg) 0.91 [In] Apple juice (kg) 1.20 [In] Water (kg) 1.02 [In] Electricity (MJ) 0.25 [Out] Blueberries (kg) 0.90 [Out] Wastewater (kg) 1.72 Foods 2025,14, 1167 6 of 17 Table 1. Cont. Process Flow Quantity Edible coating [In] Berries (kg) 0.90 [In] Protein (kg) 0.01 [In] Tween 20 (kg) 3.58 ×10−4 [In] Glycerol (kg) 2.69 ×10−3 [In] Water (kg) 0.08 [Out] Blueberries (kg) 0.99 Packaging [In] Blueberries (kg) 0.99 [In] HDPE (kg) 0.01 [Out] Blueberries (kg) 1.00 Table 2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for innovative raspberries, expressed on a unit basis (1 kg of final packaged berries) of the final raspberry product. Process Flow Quantity Osmotic dehydration [In] Raspberries (kg) 1.17 [In] Apple juice (kg) 1.52 [In] Water (kg) 1.30 [In] Electricity (MJ) 0.20 [Out] Raspberries (kg) 0.90 [Out] Wastewater (kg) 2.60 Edible coating [In] Berries (kg) 0.90 [In] Protein (kg) 0.01 [In] Tween 20 (kg) 3.58 ×10−4 [In] Glycerol (kg) 2.69 ×10−3 [In] Water (kg) 0.08 [Out] Raspberries (kg) 0.99 Packaging [In] Raspberries (kg) 0.99 [In] HDPE (kg) 0.01 [Out] Raspberries (kg) 1.00 Table 3. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for innovative strawberries, expressed on a unit basis (1 kg of final packaged berries) of the final strawberry product. Process Flow Quantity Osmotic dehydration [In] Strawberries (kg) 1.03 [In] Apple juice (kg) 0.75 [In] Water (kg) 1.15 [In] Electricity (MJ) 0.25 [Out] Strawberries (kg) 0.90 [Out] Wastewater (kg) 3.94 Edible coating [In] Berries (kg) 0.90 [In] Protein (kg) 0.01 [In] Tween 20 (kg) 3.58 ×10−4 [In] Glycerol (kg) 2.69 ×10−3 [In] Water (kg) 0.08 [Out] Strawberries (kg) 0.99 Packaging [In] Strawberries (kg) 0.99 [In] HDPE (kg) 0.01 [Out] Strawberries (kg) 1.00 Foods 2025,14, 1167 7 of 17 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment The results of the environmental impact assessment throughout the life cycle of the production of innovative berries (blueberry, raspberry, and strawberry) with extended shelf life, per 1 kg of final packaged berries, are presented in Tables 4–6. Table 4. Life cycle impact assessment results for the innovative blueberries (per 1 kg of final packaged berries) for the selected conventional and innovative midpoint impact categories. Midpoint Impact Categories Units Osmotic Dehydration Edible Coating Packaging Total Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon kg CO2eq. 6.35E−01 1.27E−02 2.26E−02 6.70E−01 Climate change, incl biogenic carbon kg CO2eq. 4.02E−01 4.21E−03 2.27E−02 4.29E−01 Fine Particulate Matter Formation kg PM2.5 eq. 6.42E−04 1.01E−05 7.88E−06 6.60E−04 Fossil depletion kg oil eq. 1.20E−01 5.01E−03 2.28E−02 1.48E−01 Freshwater Consumption m36.92E−02 1.13E−04 9.86E−05 6.94E−02 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4 DB eq. 1.03E−03 6.94E−06 8.24E−06 1.05E−03 Freshwater Eutrophication kg P eq. 1.09E−05 1.08E−06 3.46E−08 1.20E−05 Human toxicity, cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 2.80E−04 3.79E−06 1.35E−05 2.97E−04 Human toxicity, non-cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 2.66E−02 1.27E−02 2.83E−03 4.21E−02 Ionizing Radiation Bq C-60 eq. to air 1.29E−03 6.14E−04 7.77E−05 1.98E−03 Land use Annual crop eq.·y3.56E−01 1.31E−02 2.94E−04 3.69E−01 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 8.64E−04 1.11E−05 2.44E−05 9.00E−04 Marine Eutrophication kg N eq. 4.29E−04 8.28E−06 2.86E−07 4.38E−04 Metal depletion kg Cu eq. 5.35E−04 3.17E−04 1.63E−05 8.68E−04 Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems kg NOxeq. 2.99E−01 2.82E−02 1.62E−02 3.43E−01 Photochemical Ozone Formation, Human Health kg NOxeq. 1.87E−01 1.75E−02 1.00E−02 2.15E−01 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 1.67E−06 2.18E−08 4.88E−09 1.70E−06 Terrestrial Acidification kg SO2eq. 1.88E−03 4.35E−05 2.37E−05 1.95E−03 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 7.14E−02 5.25E−03 3.12E−03 7.98E−02 Foods 2025,14, 1167 8 of 17 Table 5. Life cycle impact assessment results for the innovative raspberries (per 1 kg of final packaged berries) for the selected conventional and innovative midpoint impact categories. Midpoint Impact Categories Units Osmotic Dehydration Edible Coating Packaging Total Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon kg CO2eq. 1.36E+00 6.36E−02 2.26E−02 1.45E+00 Climate change, incl biogenic carbon kg CO2eq. 8.35E−01 2.14E−02 2.26E−02 8.79E−01 Fine Particulate Matter Formation kg PM2.5 eq. 1.39E−03 5.05E−05 7.86E−06 1.45E−03 Fossil depletion kg oil eq. 2.56E−01 2.51E−02 2.27E−02 3.04E−01 Freshwater Consumption m31.55E−01 5.67E−04 9.83E−05 1.56E−01 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4 DB eq. 2.27E−03 3.45E−05 8.22E−06 2.31E−03 Freshwater Eutrophication kg P eq. 2.24E−05 5.39E−06 3.45E−08 2.78E−05 Human toxicity, cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 5.53E−04 1.90E−05 1.35E−05 5.86E−04 Human toxicity, non-cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 5.67E−02 6.27E−02 2.82E−03 1.22E−01 Ionizing Radiation Bq C-60 eq. to air 2.86E−03 3.07E−03 7.74E−05 6.01E−03 Land use Annual crop eq.·y7.92E−01 6.52E−02 2.93E−04 8.57E−01 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 1.89E−03 5.53E−05 2.44E−05 1.97E−03 Marine Eutrophication kg N eq. 9.53E−04 4.12E−05 2.85E−07 9.94E−04 Metal depletion kg Cu eq. 1.12E−03 1.58E−03 1.63E−05 2.72E−03 Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems kg NOxeq. 5.78E−01 1.41E−01 1.61E−02 7.35E−01 Photochemical Ozone Formation, Human Health kg NOxeq. 3.61E−01 8.77E−02 1.00E−02 4.59E−01 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 3.71E−06 1.08E−07 4.86E−09 3.82E−06 Terrestrial Acidification kg SO2eq. 4.09E−03 2.16E−04 2.36E−05 4.33E−03 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 1.29E−01 2.61E−02 3.11E−03 1.58E−01 Foods 2025,14, 1167 9 of 17 Table 6. Life cycle impact assessment results for the innovative strawberries (per 1 kg of final packaged berries) for the selected conventional and innovative midpoint impact categories. Midpoint Impact Categories Units Osmotic Dehydration Edible Coating Packaging Total Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon kg CO2eq. 6.65E−01 2.55E−02 2.27E−02 7.13E−01 Climate change, incl biogenic carbon kg CO2eq. 4.15E−01 8.51E−03 2.27E−02 4.46E−01 Fine Particulate Matter Formation kg PM2.5 eq. 6.75E−04 2.02E−05 7.90E−06 7.03E−04 Fossil depletion kg oil eq. 1.23E−01 1.01E−02 2.29E−02 1.56E−01 Freshwater Consumption m3 7.41E−02 2.27E−04 9.88E−05 7.44E−02 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4 DB eq. 1.15E−03 1.39E−05 8.26E−06 1.17E−03 Freshwater Eutrophication kg P eq. 1.51E−05 2.16E−06 3.47E−08 1.73E−05 Human toxicity, cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 4.03E−04 7.60E−06 1.36E−05 4.24E−04 Human toxicity, non-cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 2.81E−02 2.53E−02 2.84E−03 5.62E−02 Ionizing Radiation Bq C-60 eq. to air 1.44E−03 1.23E−03 7.78E−05 2.75E−03 Land use Annual crop eq.·y3.92E−01 2.61E−02 2.94E−04 4.18E−01 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 9.60E−04 2.22E−05 2.45E−05 1.01E−03 Marine Eutrophication kg N eq. 4.78E−04 1.65E−05 2.87E−07 4.95E−04 Metal depletion kg Cu eq. 6.25E−04 6.33E−04 1.64E−05 1.27E−03 Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems kg NOxeq. 2.52E−01 5.65E−02 1.62E−02 3.25E−01 Photochemical Ozone Formation, Human Health kg NOxeq. 1.58E−01 3.51E−02 1.01E−02 2.03E−01 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 1.83E−06 4.35E−08 4.89E−09 1.88E−06 Terrestrial Acidification kg SO2eq. 1.98E−03 8.69E−05 2.37E−05 2.09E−03 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 4.81E−02 1.05E−02 3.13E−03 6.17E−02 Subsequently, detailed diagrams are presented in Figures 3–5, illustrating the contribution of each individual process to the total footprint of the selected midpoint impact categories, providing a comprehensive analysis of the environmental burden. Foods 2025,14, 1167 16 of 17 14. Gribova, N.A.; Perov, V.I.; Eliseeva, L.G.; Berketova, L.V.; Nikolayeva, M.A.; Soltaeva, N.L. Innovative Technology of Processing Berries by Osmotic Dehydration. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on World Technological Trends in Agribusiness, Omsk City, Russia, 4–5 July 2020; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 624. 15. Pateiro, M.; Vargas-Ramella, M.; Franco, D.; Gomes da Cruz, A.; Zengin, G.; Kumar, M.; Dhama, K.; Lorenzo, J.M. The Role of Emerging Technologies in the Dehydration of Berries: Quality, Bioactive Compounds, and Shelf Life. Food Chem. X 2022, 16, 100465. [CrossRef] 16. Márquez-Villacorta, L.; Pretell-Vásquez, C.; Hayayumi-Valdivia, M. Optimization of Edible Coating with Essential Oils in Blueberries. Ciência Agrotecnologia 2022,46, 198. [CrossRef] 17. César de Albuquerque Sousa, T.; de Lima Costa, I.H.; Gandra, E.A.; Meinhart, A.D. Use of Edible Coatings as a New Sustainable Alternative to Extend the Shelf Life of Strawberries (Fragaria ananassa): A Review. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2024,108, 102375. [CrossRef] 18. Mari, A.; Parisouli, D.N.; Krokida, M. Exploring Osmotic Dehydration for Food Preservation: Methods, Modelling, and Modern Applications. Foods 2024,13, 2783. [CrossRef] 19. Pié-Amill, A.; Colás-Medà, P.; Viñas, I.; Falcó, I.; Alegre, I. Efficacy of an Edible Coating with Carvacrol and Citral in Frozen Strawberries and Blueberries to Control Foodborne Pathogens. Foods 2024,13, 3167. [CrossRef] 20. Peña, C.; Civit, B.; Gallego-Schmid, A.; Druckman, A.; Pires, A.C.-; Weidema, B.; Mieras, E.; Wang, F.; Fava, J.; Canals, L.M.i; et al. Using Life Cycle Assessment to Achieve a Circular Economy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021,26, 215–220. [CrossRef] 21. Cacace, F.; Bottani, E.; Rizzi, A.; Vignali, G. Evaluation of the Economic and Environmental Sustainability of High Pressure Processing of Foods. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020,60, 102281. [CrossRef] 22. Smol, M.; Mejia, A.; Gastaldi, M.; D’Adamo, I. Environmental Indicators for Assessment of Circular Economy (CE) Implementation in the Water and Wastewater Sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2025,34, 1993–2011. [CrossRef] 23. Stramarkou, M.; Boukouvalas, C.; Koskinakis, S.E.; Serifi, O.; Bekiris, V.; Tsamis, C.; Krokida, M. Life Cycle Assessment and Preliminary Cost Evaluation of a Smart Packaging System. Sustainability 2022,14, 7080. [CrossRef] 24. Boukouvalas, C.; Kekes, T.; Oikonomopoulou, V.; Krokida, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Production from Solid Waste Valorization and Wastewater Purification: A Case Study of Meat Processing Industry. Energies 2024,17, 487. [CrossRef] 25. Akharume, F.U.; Singh, K.; Sivanandan, L. Characteristics of Apple Juice and Sugar Infused Fresh and Frozen Blueberries. LWT 2016,73, 448–457. [CrossRef] 26. Tsakiri-Mantzorou, Z.; Drosou, C.; Mari, A.; Stramarkou, M.; Laina, K.T.; Krokida, M. Edible Coating with Encapsulated Antimicrobial and Antibrowning Agents via the Emerging Electrospinning Process and the Conventional Spray Drying: Effect on Quality and Shelf Life of Fresh-Cut Potatoes. Potato Res. 2024. [CrossRef] 27. Mari, A.; Fafalis, C.; Krokida, M. Extension of Blueberry Shelf-Life with Edible Coatings from Chlorella Vulgaris. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2024,110, 79. 28. Verghese, K.; Lewis, H.; Lockrey, S.; Williams, H. Packaging’s Role in Minimizing Food Loss and Waste Across the Supply Chain. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015,28, 603–620. [CrossRef] 29. Boz, Z.; Korhonen, V.; Koelsch Sand, C. Consumer Considerations for the Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review. Sustainability 2020,12, 2192. [CrossRef] 30. Hussain, S.; Akhter, R.; Maktedar, S.S. Advancements in Sustainable Food Packaging: From Eco-Friendly Materials to Innovative Technologies. Sustain. Food Technol. 2024,2, 1297–1364. [CrossRef] 31. Bou-Mitri, C.; Abdessater, M.; Zgheib, H.; Akiki, Z. Food Packaging Design and Consumer Perception of the Product Quality, Safety, Healthiness and Preference. Nutr. Food Sci. 2021,51, 71–86. [CrossRef] 32. Khanali, M.; Kokei, D.; Aghbashlo, M.; Nasab, F.K.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Tabatabaei, M. Energy Flow Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment of Apple Juice Production: Recommendations for Renewable Energies Implementation and Climate Change Mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,246, 118997. [CrossRef] 33. Mari, A.; Kekes, T.; Boukouvalas, C.; Drosou, C.; Krokida, M.; Tsartsaris, C. Evaluating the Environmental and Economic Benefits of New Technologies in Low-Salt Olive Fermentation. Agriculture 2024,14, 2077. [CrossRef] 34. Nsonzi, F.; Ramaswamy, H.S. Osmotic Dehydration Kinetics of Blueberries. Dry. Technol. 1998,16, 725–741. [CrossRef] 35. Panagiotou, N.M.; Karathanos, V.T.; Maroulis, Z.B. Effect of osmotic agent on osmotic dehydration of fruits. Dry. Technol. 1999,17, 175–189. [CrossRef] 36. Ciurzy´nska, A.; Kowalska, H.; Czajkowska, K.; Lenart, A. Osmotic Dehydration in Production of Sustainable and Healthy Food. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016,50, 186–192. [CrossRef] 37. Rajendran, N.; Runge, T.; Bergman, R.D.; Nepal, P.; Pottackal, N.T.; Rahman, M.M. Economic and Environmental Analysis of Producing Soy Protein-Cellulose-Based Bionanocomposite Fruit Coating. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024,211, 118213. [CrossRef] 38. Lecart, B.; Baumsteiger, C.; Monie, F.; Di Maria, A.; Detrembleur, C.; Richel, A.; Vanderschuren, H. Towards Green Chemicals and Edible Coatings from Barks and Peels with near Critical Extraction of Suberin. Green Chem. 2023,25, 9282–9291. [CrossRef] Foods 2025,14, 1167 17 of 17 39. Zhao, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Yu, X.; Li, W.; Zhang, S.; Meng, X.; Zhao, Z.M.; Dong, T.; Anderson, A.; et al. Sustainable Bioplastics Derived from Renewable Natural Resources for Food Packaging. Matter 2023,6, 97–127. [CrossRef] 40. Arfelli, F.; Roguszewska, M.; Torta, G.; Iurlo, M.; Cespi, D.; Ciacci, L.; Passarini, F. Environmental Impacts of Food Packaging: Is It All a Matter of Raw Materials? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024,49, 318–328. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.