Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026
The environmental impact of two different hospital foodservice systems: A descriptive study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cruickshank Denise, Morgan Kate, Young Adrienne, Suter Michelle
Аннотация
AIMS: To quantify total waste produced, and energy and water used in two hospitals with different foodservice systems-a traditional central plating model and a meals on demand and choice at point of service hybrid model.
METHODS: An observational audit was conducted over a 7-day period in two hospital kitchens: Hospital A (central plating) and Hospital B (Meals on Demand and Choice at Point of Service). Data collected included food waste, cardboard/paper waste and general waste alongside electricity, gas and water consumption. Descriptive statistics were used to report meal waste (kg/meal), electricity (kW/meal), gas (kL/meal) and water (L/meal) use and carbon dioxide equivalents across the two hospitals.
RESULTS: Higher gas, electricity and water use, and total waste per meal, was observed in Hospital A compared to Hospital B (gas A: 32.67 × 10-3 kL/meal, B: 5.15 × 10-3 kL/meal, electricity A: 1.61 kWh/meal; B: 1.53 kWh/meal, water A: 8.51 L/meal; B: 1.16 L/meal; waste A: 0.52 kg/meal, B: 0.26 kg/meal).
CONCLUSION: This study describes variation in environmental outputs across two hospital foodservice systems. Lower waste and resource use per meal was observed in Hospital B and this translated into lower carbon dioxide outputs. The findings provide insight into environmental performance differences that may inform future sustainability initiatives in hospital foodservices.
METHODS: An observational audit was conducted over a 7-day period in two hospital kitchens: Hospital A (central plating) and Hospital B (Meals on Demand and Choice at Point of Service). Data collected included food waste, cardboard/paper waste and general waste alongside electricity, gas and water consumption. Descriptive statistics were used to report meal waste (kg/meal), electricity (kW/meal), gas (kL/meal) and water (L/meal) use and carbon dioxide equivalents across the two hospitals.
RESULTS: Higher gas, electricity and water use, and total waste per meal, was observed in Hospital A compared to Hospital B (gas A: 32.67 × 10-3 kL/meal, B: 5.15 × 10-3 kL/meal, electricity A: 1.61 kWh/meal; B: 1.53 kWh/meal, water A: 8.51 L/meal; B: 1.16 L/meal; waste A: 0.52 kg/meal, B: 0.26 kg/meal).
CONCLUSION: This study describes variation in environmental outputs across two hospital foodservice systems. Lower waste and resource use per meal was observed in Hospital B and this translated into lower carbon dioxide outputs. The findings provide insight into environmental performance differences that may inform future sustainability initiatives in hospital foodservices.