Electrocoagulation (EC) with a zinc anode can effectively remove perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) from water. Besides hydrophobic interactions between PFOA/PFOS and zinc hydroxide flocs, aeration is another crucial factor determining PFOA/PFOS removal in EC. This study examined how aeration (in terms of bubble sizes and flow rates) could impact PFOA/PFOS removal in EC. Both bubble sizes (coarse vs. fine) and airflow rates (7.9, 9.4, and 11.0 mL per sec) were critical for PFOA removal and zinc hydroxide floc generation. EC aerated with fine bubbles had 14–21% higher PFOA removal efficiency than EC aerated with coarse bubbles. PFOA removal by EC with a high airflow (11.0 mL per sec) was 19% higher than EC with a medium airflow (9.4 mL per sec), or 31–37% higher than EC with a low airflow (7.9 mL per sec). These results indicate that fine bubbles and high airflow rates are more beneficial for PFOA removal, likely due to a greater air–water contact area and turbulence. The EC with coarse bubbles produced zinc hydroxide flocs with 29–34% greater Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area and 18% greater mass. However, the BET surface area and mass of the flocs were not critical for PFOA removal. The impacts of aeration on PFOS removal in EC were not significant.

Assessing the environmental impacts of food donation systems is necessary to support food donation policy and management. Few life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have investigated the environmental impacts of food donation systems. This comparative LCA study analyzed the environmental impacts of eight different donation scenarios reflecting diverse supply chain configurations and operational management options, using 391.8 kg of redistributed food over two weeks as the functional unit. Each of the eight scenarios presented net environmental benefits for all five life cycle environmental impact categories: 132~233 kg CO₂-eq for global warming potential, 2.30~5.24 kg SO₂-eq for acidification potential, 1.13~2.04 kg N-eq for eutrophication potential, 1791~3140 MJ for cumulative energy demand, and 3.7 × 10⁷~5.8 × 10⁷ m³ for water resource depletion. The highest magnitudes of environmental benefits were achieved when intermediary organizations collected and gleaned the surplus food from donors and then transported it to food pantries (the eighth scenario). Improving the quality of donated food, augmenting the sorting capacities of emergency organizations, and shortening transportation distances could increase the environmental benefits of food donation systems. The environmental impact intensities of production and waste management choices for food waste generated during the redistribution of the surplus food ranked as the top influential factors for the five environmental impacts. Rescuing surplus food from donors who landfilled the wasted food tended to yield larger environmental benefits than from donors who composted it. Overall, this study finds that improving donation quality and increasing the capacities of emergency food organizations are crucial for maximizing the environmental benefits of the fresh produce donation system.

Food policies that respond to shocks and support nutritious diets for vulnerable populations can enhance resilience, support social equity, and reduce environmental damage. Using a simulation model, we evaluated the effectiveness of two food redistribution policies—Nourish New York, a program providing funds to food rescue organizations to purchase food directly from farmers, and the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law (an organics “waste ban”)—in response to a shock such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed policy based on recovered food and life cycle carbon and water footprints over 10 years. Both policies improved produce donations during post-shock. The waste ban increased waste at feeding organizations; diverting unavoidable food waste to composting and anaerobic digestion mitigated its carbon footprint. Enhanced coordination and partnerships within the food redistribution network were crucial for ensuring that produce reached those in need, ultimately reducing long-term environmental impacts. Implementing multiple strategies that enhance recovery from farms and retail, while strengthening the organizational capacity of the food redistribution network, can simultaneously advance food security and environmental goals.

Fresh produce is the most wasted food, accounting for about 45% of household food waste in the United States. The literature is inconclusive about whether nutrition assistance programs aimed at increasing access to healthy food affect household food waste, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the association between participation in nutrition assistance programs (food pantries and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and changes in household produce waste since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that more fresh produce was distributed to food pantries during the pandemic, we examined whether the perceived quality of fresh produce at food pantries may influence household food waste behavior. We conducted an online survey for adults residing in the Capital Region of New York state from October to December 2021. Among 504 respondents, 27% reported throwing away less produce than usual since the COVID-19 pandemic began, 22% used food pantries, and about half perceived the quality of fresh produce at those pantries as poor. Approximately one-third of respondents were SNAP participants, including the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT). We found that food pantry users who rated produce quality as acceptable had 2.4 times the odds of wasting less produce since the COVID-19 pandemic began compared to non-users of food pantries. Similarly, SNAP/P-EBT users were more likely to report less household produce waste compared to non-SNAP/P-EBT users. Our findings highlight that participation in food assistance programs may help reduce household food waste and underscore the importance of maintaining fresh produce quality at a level clients perceive as acceptable. We suggest greater collaboration among public health nutrition, food waste research, and food systems stakeholders to work toward the common goals of efficiently distributing healthy food, reducing food waste, and eliminating hunger.