View PDF Version

Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
DOI: 10.1039/D5FB00899A (Paper) Sustainable Food Technol., 2026, Advance Article

Sustainable valorization of tomato waste through life cycle assessment of lycopene extraction methods

Natalia A. Di Clemente, Andrea Gomez-Zavaglia* and Esteban Gerbino
Center for Research and Development in Food Science and Technology (CIDCA, CCT-CONICET La Plata) RA1900, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. E-mail: angoza@qui.uc.pt; Fax: +54(221)4249287; Tel: +54(221)4890741

Received 15th November 2025 , Accepted 11th December 2025

First published on 12th December 2025

Abstract

Tomato processing produces substantial quantities of residues that constitute both an environmental challenge and a potential resource for recovery. This study assessed the environmental performance of four lycopene extraction strategies from tomato discards through a life cycle assessment approach. Conventional and ultrasound-assisted extractions were compared with either a hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25, v/v) mixture or ethyl acetate as solvent, defining four scenarios: Scenario 1 (C-HAE, conventional extraction with hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol); Scenario 2 (C-EA, conventional extraction with ethyl acetate); Scenario 3 (U-HAE, ultrasound-assisted extraction with hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol); Scenario 4 (U-EA, ultrasound-assisted extraction with ethyl acetate). The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of lycopene-equivalent extract. Environmental impacts were calculated with the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) method, considering eighteen impact categories. Scenario 4 exhibited the lowest environmental impact (117.3 ± 27.6 mg/100 g of lycopene yield; 1187.9 ± 103.5 µg Txeq per gww) whereas Scenario 2 the highest, with the lowest lycopene yield (18.6 ± 18.5 mg/100 g) but the highest antioxidant capacity per unit of lycopene. A sensitivity analysis based on the antioxidant activity-to-lycopene ratio confirmed Scenario 4 as the most favorable option. Beyond energy efficiency and solvent selection, the extraction process also affected lycopene isomerization: ultrasound-assisted methods promoted Z-isomers formation over E-ones, with increases of 41% for the hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol solvent mixture and 140% for ethyl acetate. Since Z-isomers are more bioaccessible and display comparable or higher antioxidant activity than E-isomers, this shift may further enhance the functional value of the recovered pigment. Overall, combining green solvents with ultrasound technologies can reduce the environmental burdens and support sustainable valorization of tomato waste.


Sustainability spotlight

This study advances sustainable food systems by demonstrating that lycopene extraction from tomato residues can be significantly optimized through the combined use of green solvents and ultrasound-assisted technologies. By integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with functional efficiency metrics, the work highlights extraction routes that substantially reduce energy demand, solvent use, and environmental burdens while increasing the added value of agro-industrial by-products. These findings directly support SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by promoting circular resource use, SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) through the development of cleaner and more efficient processing technologies, and SDG 13 (Climate Action) by identifying lower-impact production pathways. These results support the transition toward low-impact, circular processing strategies that promote waste valorization, resource efficiency, and more sustainable food production chains.

1 Introduction

Tomatoes represent one of the most important agricultural commodities worldwide and, in 2023, ranked as the leading vegetable crop, with a global production of approximately 192 million tons.1 They are particularly valued for their rich composition of antioxidants, including ascorbic acid (vitamin C), tocopherol (vitamin E), carotenoids (lycopene and β-carotene), and various phenolic compounds, including quercetin, kaempferol, naringenin, lutein, and chlorogenic acids.2 Beyond their health-promoting properties, these compounds also contribute to the sensory attributes of tomatoes, influencing aroma, taste, and texture.3

Despite their remarkable nutritional and sensory qualities, postharvest losses in tomatoes remain a major global concern, estimated between 25% and 42% annually.4 Food loss and waste not only generate significant socio-economic costs but also account for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions and lead to the depletion of natural resources (e.g., water, soil, energy) used to produce food that is never consumed, which ultimately occupies 21% of landfill capacity.5 To mitigate these challenges, international organizations have established initiatives aimed at reducing food loss and waste. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) includes Target 12.3, which seeks to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels by 2030 while also reducing food losses along production and supply chains, including postharvest stages.6 The European Commission has aligned its policies with this objective through the “Farm to Fork Strategy”, a central component of the European Green Deal.7

Accordingly, the valorization of tomato discards (losses, wastes) represents a promising approach. Recovering bioactive compounds from agro-industrial residues not only adds value through the extraction of nutrients and functional ingredients but also reduces the environmental impacts associated with waste disposal.8 Likewise, the valorization strategy can be extended to surplus tomatoes, which are often discarded during periods of high production due to their seasonal nature and high perishability. The reuse of these derivatives can simultaneously provide additional income sources, reduce disposal costs, and enhance the nutritional value of functional foods.9

The use of synthetic dyes has raised increasing health and regulatory concerns. Some artificial colorants, such as Erythrosine (Red No. 3), have been associated with potential adverse effects, including genotoxicity10 thyroid dysfunction, and hyperactivity in children.11,12 Due to such evidence, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of Red No. 3 in cosmetics and topical drugs and is moving towards restricting its use in food products.13,14 Several studies have further linked synthetic dyes to allergic reactions and behavioral effects, prompting stricter regulations and a growing consumer preference for safer, natural alternatives.15 Within this framework, natural pigments offer innovative opportunities for replacement. Their use has expanded across multiple industries, including food, pharmaceutical, textile, dairy, and seafood sectors. In this context, lycopene, a key carotenoid predominantly found in tomatoes, is increasingly valued in the food industry as a natural and safe coloring agent, owing to both its vivid red hue and its strong antioxidant capacity.16 Because tomatoes account for 80-90% of dietary lycopene intake, with levels ranging from 0.72 to 4.2 mg per 100 g depending on ripeness, temperature, and soil conditions, they constitute a major and reliable source for natural pigment-based applications.17

The growing consumer preference for natural, health-promoting, and sustainable products further drives the demand for functional foods enriched with natural antioxidants such as lycopene.16,18–21 The global carotenoids market reflects this trend, being valued at USD 2 billion in 2023 and projected to reach USD 2.9 billion by 2029, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.7%.17

Despite increasing interest in lycopene extraction from tomato residues, the environmental implications of these processes remain largely underexplored. The available research typically focuses on extraction yields, antioxidant properties, or process optimization,22 but few works integrate these metrics within a comprehensive environmental quantification.23,24 Moreover, no study to date has jointly evaluated the combined effect of extraction conditions and lycopene isomerization on both environmental performance and functional efficiency.

Given this context, the aim of this study is to compare the environmental impact of different extraction techniques used for the recovery of bioactive compounds from tomato discards. Specifically, the study evaluates conventional extraction methods employing petrochemical solvents against sustainable alternatives such as ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) and the use of low-toxicity, biodegradable solvents like ethyl acetate. A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was applied to quantify the environmental performance of each extraction process in terms of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and solvent use. The outcomes aimed to identify the most sustainable strategies for the valorization of tomato residues, contributing to the development of greener extraction technologies aligned with sustainable food processing.

2 Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

Analytical-grade hexane, acetone, ethanol, and ethyl acetate, together with HPLC-grade hexane, tetrahydrofuran, acetonitrile, and methanol, were obtained from ANEDRA (Research, ARG) and CICCARELLI (Reagents S.A., ARG). The HPLC calibration curve was prepared using a lycopene standard (HPLC grade, 98% purity, from tomato; Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Germany).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1 Tomato pre-processing. Mature tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum cv. ‘Platense’) were donated by Quinta Flores, located in Arana (35.00 °S, 57.90 °W) (La Plata, Argentina). The fruits were washed with running tap water to remove surface impurities. Seeds were manually separated, while the pulp and peel were homogenized using an 800 W hand mixer until a uniform purée was obtained. The homogenate was then concentrated by centrifugation at 7000 rpm for 15 minutes. The resulting concentrate was divided into regenerated cellulose bags and stored at −20 °C until processing (maximum storage time until processing: four weeks). To minimize exposure to light and avoid lycopene degradation, the tomato stock was covered with aluminum foil.
2.2.2 Lycopene extraction. The lycopene extracts were obtained using two solvent mixtures [hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25) and ethyl acetate] and two methods (conventional and ultrasound-assisted extraction). For each extraction, 1 g of concentrated tomato waste was used in triplicate, maintaining a sample-to-solvent ratio of 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]16 in 15 mL Falcon tubes. The conventional method, modified according to,25 consisted of mixing 1 g of the homogenized sample with the solvent mixture [hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25) or ethyl acetate] for 1 minute in a vortex, and then incubating it at 40 °C for 1 minute. Ultrasound-assisted extraction was carried out using a Branson 2510 ultrasonic cleaner (tank capacity: 1/2 gallon) operating at a maximum power of 300 W and a frequency of 40 kHz for 29 minutes at 60 °C, according to26 with modifications. Ten milliliters of distilled water were added to the lycopene extracts to remove any interfering water-soluble compounds.27 The mixture was then centrifuged at 4000 rpm for one minute in a centrifuge 5430 (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany). Finally, the organic phase was collected and filtered through 0.45 µm nylon filters prior to lycopene analysis. All extraction procedures were performed in the dark to minimize carotenoid degradation.
2.2.3 Lycopene analysis. The lycopene concentration in the samples was determined using a UV-vis spectrophotometer (UVmini-1240, Shimadzu) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). For the former, the absorbance at the maximum wavelength (λmax) of 472 nm was used for the calculations.

For the HPLC analysis, the samples were evaporated and resuspended in a mixture of tetrahydrofuran, acetonitrile and methanol (15[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]30[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]55 v/v/v) via ultrasonication for 15 minutes to ensure the solubilization of the extracts. Chromatographic analyses were performed using a Waters Spherisorb C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 µm particle size) maintained at 35 °C under isocratic conditions. The mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile and water (90[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10, v/v) containing 9 µM triethylamine (TEA), with a flow rate of 1 mL min−1. The system was equipped with a Waters 1525 binary HPLC pump and a Waters 2998 photodiode array detector, set at λmax = 472 nm. The mobile phase was freshly prepared prior to each run.

2.2.4 LCA methodology.
2.2.4.1 Study design and goal definition. The goal of this study was to compare the environmental performance of conventional and ultrasound-assisted extraction techniques for the recovery of bioactive compounds -particularly carotenoids, predominantly lycopene-from tomato discards. The assessment focused on four extraction strategies, referred to as scenarios (Table 1), which describe the different scenarios based on the solvents and extraction methodologies employed in this study.
Table 1 Description of different scenarios analyzed in this study
Scenario Method Solvent
1 Convectional Hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]Acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]Ethanol
2 Convectional Ethyl acetate
3 Ultrasonic Hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]Acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]Ethanol
4 Ultrasonic Ethyl acetate

Scenario 1 (C-HAE): conventional solvent extraction using a mixture of hexane, acetone, and ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25, v/v) with a solid-to-solvent ratio of 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]16 (w/v). The mixture was vortexed for 1 min and maintained in a water bath at 40 °C for 1 min.

Scenario 2 (C-EA): conventional solvent extraction with ethyl acetate and a solid-to-solvent ratio of 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]16 (w/v). The mixture was vortexed for 1 min and maintained in a water bath at 40 °C for 1 min.

Scenario 3 (U-HAE): Ultrasound-assisted extraction using a mixture of hexane, acetone, and ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25, v/v) with a solid-to-solvent ratio of 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]16 (w/v). The extraction was performed in an ultrasonic bath for 29 min at 60 °C, 40 kHz, 300 W.

Scenario 4 (U-EA): Ultrasound-assisted extraction with ethyl acetate at a solid-to-solvent ratio of 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]16 (w/v). The extraction was carried out in an ultrasonic bath for 29 min at 60 °C, 40 kHz, 300 W.

A LCA framework was applied in accordance with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards (International Organization for Standardization [ISO].28


2.2.4.2 Functional unit and system boundaries. The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of lycopene-equivalent extract obtained from tomato discards. This unit allows for the comparison of extraction methods based on the same quantity of target compound produced, independent of yield variations.

The system boundaries considered a gate-to-gate approach, encompassing all processes from tomato pulp preparation (tomato discards collection, washing, removal of peel and seeds, mixing and centrifugation) through lycopene extraction (Scenarios 1 to 4) and solvent recovery (Fig. 1). Upstream agricultural production, downstream product formulation (e.g., encapsulation or food incorporation) and waste management were excluded to isolate the environmental impact of the extraction stage.


image file: d5fb00899a-f1.tif
Fig. 1 System boundaries, inputs, and outputs of the evaluated scenarios: Scenario 1: C-HAE: conventional extraction using hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25, v/v); Scenario 2: C-EA: conventional extraction using ethyl acetate; Scenario 3: U-HAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction using hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25, v/v); Scenario 4: U-EA: ultrasound-assisted extraction using ethyl acetate.

2.2.4.3 Life cycle inventory (LCI): Inventory data collection. The LCI involved the systematic collection of input and output data related to each stage of the process for the four scenarios. The inventory considered the consumption of electricity, tomatoes, solvents (hexane, acetone, ethanol, and ethyl acetate), and water (tap and deionized), as well as the generation of liquid, organic, and chemical wastes, solvent losses, and the production of dried lycopene. Detailed data corresponding to the four evaluated scenarios are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Life cycle inventory of material and energy flows (inputs and outputs) per functional unit (1 kg of lycopene-equivalent extract) for the four process scenarios
  Unit Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Inputs
Tomatoes pulp preparation
Tomatoes Kg 5214 58[thin space (1/6-em)]841 5196 5889
Electricity MJ 6100 68[thin space (1/6-em)]844 6079 6890
Tap water L 10[thin space (1/6-em)]428 117[thin space (1/6-em)]682 10[thin space (1/6-em)]391 11[thin space (1/6-em)]779
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Lycopene extraction
Solvent L        
Hexane   4406   4390  
Acetone   2203   2195  
Ethanol   2203   2195  
Ethyl acetate     99[thin space (1/6-em)]441   9953
Deionized water L 5507 62[thin space (1/6-em)]151 5488 6221
Electricity MJ 13[thin space (1/6-em)]658 154[thin space (1/6-em)]133 37[thin space (1/6-em)]455 42[thin space (1/6-em)]455
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Solvent recovery
Lycopene in extract Kg 2533 78[thin space (1/6-em)]933 2495 8350
Electricity MJ 242 8200 241 821
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Outputs
Tomatoes pulp preparation
Liquid waste L 12[thin space (1/6-em)]158 137[thin space (1/6-em)]209 12[thin space (1/6-em)]116 13[thin space (1/6-em)]733
Organic waste Kg 2933 33[thin space (1/6-em)]098 2923 3313
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Lycopene extraction
Organic waste Kg 550 6214 548 621
Chemical waste Kg 8972 62[thin space (1/6-em)]151 8941 6221
Lost solvent Kg        
Hexane   378   406  
Acetone          
Ethanol          
Ethyl acetate     10[thin space (1/6-em)]763   628
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Solvent recovery
Solvent Kg 2532 78[thin space (1/6-em)]932 2494 8349
Dried lycopene Kg 1 1 1 1

Energy data were obtained from direct laboratory measurements, and emission factors for electricity and solvents were sourced from the ELCD 3.2 database (Greendelta v2.18 correction20220908).

Environmental impacts were evaluated using the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint method, adopting the hierarchist perspective and World (2010) (H) normalization approach.29,30 The impact categories selected for this analysis (Table 3) included global warming (GW, kg CO2-eq), stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD, kg CFC-11 eq), ionizing radiation (IR, kBq Co-60 eq), ozone formation (human health) (OHh, kg NOx eq), ozone formation (terrestrial ecosystems) (OTe, kg NOx eq), fine particulate matter formation (FPMF, kg PM2.5 eq), terrestrial acidification (TA, kg SO2 eq), freshwater eutrophication (FE, kg P eq), marine eutrophication (ME, kg N eq), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE, kg 1,4-DCB eq), freshwater ecotoxicity (FEco, kg 1,4-DCB eq), marine ecotoxicity (MEco, kg 1,4-DCB eq), human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT, kg 1,4-DCB eq), human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT, kg 1,4-DCB eq), land use (L, m2 years crop eq), mineral resource scarcity (MRS, kg Cu eq), fossil resource scarcity (FRS, kg oil eq), and water consumption (WC, m3).

Table 3 ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint indicators
Impact categories Abbreviation Unit
Fine particulate matter formation FPMF kg PM2.5 eq
Fossil resource scarcity FRS kg oil eq
Freshwater ecotoxicity FEco kg 1,4-DCB
Freshwater eutrophication FE kg P eq
Global warming GW kg CO2 eq
Human carcinogenic toxicity HCT kg 1,4-DCB
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity HNCT kg 1,4-DCB
Ionizing radiation IR kBq Co-60 eq
Land use L m2a crop eq
Marine ecotoxicity MEco kg 1,4-DCB
Marine eutrophication ME kg N eq
Mineral resource scarcity MRS kg Cu eq
Ozone formation, human health OHh kg NOx eq
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems OTe kg NOx eq
Stratospheric ozone depletion SOD kg CFC11 eq
Terrestrial acidification TA kg SO2 eq
Terrestrial ecotoxicity TE kg 1,4-DCB
Water consumption WC m3

Electrical consumption (MJ) was calculated according to eqn (1),31 where P is the power of the equipment (kW) (bath, mixer, ultrasonic bath, rotavapor system) and t is the duration of use (hour).

 
Electrical consumption = P × t (1)


2.2.4.4 Life cycle assessment. Calculations were performed using Open LCA software. Impact categories were normalized and weighted to facilitate comparison among the four scenarios (Section 2.2.4.1). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of solvent recovery on antioxidant efficiency and the total environmental impact. To achieve this, the inputs and outputs were adjusted according to the ratio of extracted lycopene to antioxidant activity, as well as to the functional unit.
2.2.4.5 Data quality and assumptions. Primary data were collected from controlled laboratory-scale experiments, complemented by literature data where necessary. Assumptions included a 90% solvent recovery rate for ethyl acetate, and 80% for hexane, consistent with prior studies.32,33
2.2.5 Antioxidant activity. Antioxidant activity of lycopene extracts was measured as Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC) using ABTS (2,2-azinobis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate) method according to.34 ABTS was dissolved in water to a 7 mM concentration, then the radical cation (ABTS˙+) was produced by reacting that ABTS solution with 2.45 mM potassium persulfate (final concentration), and the mixture was kept in the dark at 20 °C for 12–16 h before use. From this concentrated solution, an ethanolic ABTS˙+ solution was prepared adjusting the absorbance to 0.70 ± 0.02 at 734 nm (UVmini-1240 spectrophotometer, Shimadzu). The addition of antioxidants led to a decrease in absorbance at 734 nm, and the resulting decolorization, expressed as the percentage inhibition of the radical cation, was evaluated as a function of concentration and time. A 10-point calibration curve was constructed using a Trolox standard solution (2.22 mM; Sigma-Aldrich) within the concentration range of 0.0125–0.08 mM. The curve was obtained by plotting Trolox concentration (mM) on the x-axis against the percentage of radical inhibition on the y-axis. Sample absorbance values were expressed as Trolox equivalents (µmol Trolox per g sample, dry basis). One milliliter of each extract was evaporated to dryness and re-dissolved in 1 mL of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), followed by sonication in an ultrasonic bath for 15 min. A reaction mixture was then prepared by combining 1 mL of ethanolic ABTS˙+ solution with 50 µL of sample, blank (DMSO), or Trolox standard. The mixture was vortexed for 5 s and allowed to react for 6 min, after which the absorbance was measured at 734 nm. The percentage inhibition of absorbance was used to calculate the Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) from the calibration curve, according to eqn (2):
 
y = 22.069x − 14.311 (2)
where y represents the percentage of inhibition, calculated as % inhibition = [(A734 control − A734 sample)/A734 control] × 100, and x corresponds to the Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC) expressed in µM.
2.2.6 Reproducibility of results. All experiments were performed on triplicate samples. The relative differences were reproducible irrespective the synthesis used. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results obtained using the statistical program Infostat v2009 software (Córdoba, Argentina). Comparison of means by Tukey mean were tested, and if p < 0.05 the difference was considered statistically significant.

3 Results and discussion

3.1. Lycopene content and antioxidant activity

The lycopene content of the tomato concentrate showed significant differences in the four extraction strategies (Table 4). Unexpectedly, Scenario 2 (conventional extraction with ethyl acetate) yielded the lowest lycopene concentration, as determined by both UV-vis and HPLC analyses, with values of 18.6 ± 0.3 and 18.6 ± 18.5 mg/100 g ww (wet weight), respectively. Scenario 4 followed, showing 186.3 ± 3.0 mg/100 g ww by UV-vis and 117.3 ± 27.6 mg/100 g ww by HPLC. Scenarios 1 and 3 exhibited the highest lycopene contents, with 207.6 ± 4.5 and 168.4 ± 18.5 mg/100 g ww, and 208.2 ± 6.0 and 147.0 ± 39.3 mg/100 g ww, respectively. These values are consistent with the higher extraction efficiencies generally reported for ultrasound-assisted and mixed-solvent systems, as shown in Table 5.35–37
Table 4 Lycopene content and antioxidant activity of tomato extracts obtained under different extraction conditions
Scenario Method Solventa Concentration (UV-vis, 472 nm) (mg/100gww)b Concentration (HPLC) (mg/100gww)b Antioxidant activity (µg Tx eq per gww) Lycopene (µg per gww) Antioxidant activity: Lycopene % E-isomers % Z-isomers E/Z
a H[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]A[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]E: Hexane[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]Acetone[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]Ethanol; EA: Ethyl acetate.b ww: wet weight of concentrated tomato; different letters in columns indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
1 Convectional H[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]A[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]E 208.2 ± 6.0A 147.0 ± 39.3A 734.7 ± 97.0C 1470.4 ± 392.7A 0.5 82.4 17.6 5.6
2 Convectional EA 18.6 ± 0.3C 18.6 ± 18.5B 630.1 ± 49.1C 186.3 ± 23.3B 3.4 93.6 6.4 15.4
3 Ultrasonic H[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]A[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]E 207.6 ± 4.5A 168.4 ± 18.5A 934.8 ± 26.9B 1683.6 ± 185.5A 0.6 75.2 24.8 3.1
4 Ultrasonic EA 186.3 ± 3.0B 117.3 ± 27.6A 1187.9 ± 103.5A 1173.3 ± 275.5A 1.0 84.6 15.4 5.5

Table 5 Literature review for lycopene extractiona
Extraction method Sample Solvent Yield Parameters Reference
a UAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction; v/w: volume-to-weight ratio; S[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]S solvent-to-sample ratio.
UAE Freeze-dried tomato pomace Ethyl lactate/Ethyl acetate (7[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]3) 133 mg/100 g dw 100 mL g−1 S[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]S 63.4 °C; 20 min 35
UAE Freeze-dried tomato pulp Hexane/acetone/ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25 v/v/v) 511 mg/100 g dw 74.4[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 mL g−1 S[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]S 47.6 °C; 45.6 min 36
Non-UAE (shaking) Tomato puree Hexane/ethanol/acetone (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25 v/v/v) 15.8 mg/100 g w/w 25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 S[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]S 37

Interestingly, while the UV-vis results revealed statistically significant differences for Scenario 4 compared with Scenarios 1 and 3, the HPLC data did not confirm these differences (Table 4). This discrepancy may be attributed to the presence of co-extracted compounds (β-carotenes, lutein) with overlapping absorbance in the visible range, which could affect the UV-vis quantification but are more effectively resolved by HPLC analysis.38

Despite these differences, Scenario 4 exhibited the highest antioxidant activity (1187.9 µg Tx eq per g ww), indicating that antioxidant compounds other than lycopene may contribute to the overall activity.38 The ratio between antioxidant activity and lycopene content was markedly higher in Scenario 2 (approximately 3.4-fold greater) than in the other scenarios, suggesting that the extraction solvent and processing conditions may differentially influence both lycopene yield and antioxidant potential. In fact, the extraction conditions in Scenario 2 could favor the co-extraction of other highly active compounds, despite its poor lycopene recovery. In contrast, the lower ratios observed for Scenarios 1 and 3 reflect a weaker functional contribution per unit of lycopene extracted. Scenario 4 showed an intermediate behavior, supporting the idea that ultrasound combined with ethyl acetate enhances the extraction of a more functionally efficient antioxidant profile than in the other scenarios. These results underscore the importance of considering functional efficiency -not only compound yield-when evaluating extraction performance.

3.2. Environmental profile

Fig. 2 and 3 show the relative contribution of each environmental impact category across the different scenarios for obtaining 1 kg of lycopene-equivalent extract from tomato discards. Scenario 2 exhibited the highest impact in all categories, followed by Scenarios 3 and 1, whereas Scenario 4 was the most favorable overall (Fig. 2). The lycopene extraction stage represented the main hotspot in all scenarios (data not shown), exceeding the impacts associated with tomato pulp preparation. This predominance is particularly evident in Scenario 2, where the lower lycopene yield led to a greater amount of tomato and solvent required to achieve the functional unit of 1 kg of lycopene, thereby amplifying the overall environmental burden.
image file: d5fb00899a-f2.tif
Fig. 2 Relative comparative environmental profiles of the four different scenarios. FPMF: fine particulate matter formation; FRS: fossil resource scarcity; FEco: freshwater ecotoxicity; FE: freshwater eutrophication; GW: global warming; HCT: human carcinogenic toxicity; HNCT: human non-carcinogenic toxicity; IR: ionizing radiation; L: Land use; MEco: marine ecotoxicity; ME: marine eutrophication; MRS: mineral resource scarcity; OHh: ozone formation, human health; OTe: ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems; SOD: stratospheric ozone depletion; TA: terrestrial acidification; TE: terrestrial ecotoxicity; WC: water consumption.

image file: d5fb00899a-f3.tif
Fig. 3 Percentage environmental contribution of each extraction scenario based on normalized results. FPMF: Fine particulate matter formation; FRS: fossil resource scarcity; FEco: freshwater ecotoxicity; FE: freshwater eutrophication; GW: global warming; HCT: human carcinogenic toxicity; HNCT: human non-carcinogenic toxicity; IR: ionizing radiation; L: land use; MEco: marine ecotoxicity; ME: marine eutrophication; MRS: mineral resource scarcity; OHh: ozone formation, human health; OTe: ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems; SOD: stratospheric ozone depletion; TA: terrestrial acidification; TE: terrestrial ecotoxicity; WC: water consumption.

Fig. 3 shows that the categories Ozone formation-Terrestrial ecosystems (OTe), Ozone formation-Human health (OHh), Marine ecotoxicity (MEco), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Fossil resource scarcity (FRS), and Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNCT) were the main contributors to the overall environmental impact. Regarding OTe and OHh, ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed through photochemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides (NOx) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). In the atmosphere, NOx and NMVOCs are transformed into ozone, which can subsequently be inhaled by humans or absorbed by plants.29 The energy consumption associated with lycopene extraction processes, together with solvent use, had a significant impact on both ecosystems and human health, with Scenario 2 contributing up to 643.1 kg NOx eq (Table 6).

Table 6 Total impacts obtained with ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint from the hierarchist perspective for 1 kg of lycopene-equivalent extract obtained from tomato discardsa
Impact categoriesb Unit Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
a Bold rows indicate the most impactful categories.b FPMF: fine particulate matter formation; FRS: fossil resource scarcity; FEco: freshwater ecotoxicity; FE: freshwater eutrophication; GW: global warming; HCT: human carcinogenic toxicity; HNCT: human non-carcinogenic toxicity; IR: ionizing radiation; L: land use; MEco: marine ecotoxicity; ME: marine; eutrophication; MRS: mineral resource scarcity; OHh: ozone formation, human health; OTe: ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems; SOD: stratospheric ozone depletion; TA: terrestrial acidification; TE: terrestrial ecotoxicity; WC: water consumption.
FPMF kg PM2.5 eq 15.2 176.1 33.3 38.2
FRS kg oil eq 3.2 × 103 3.7 × 104 6.9 × 103 7.9 × 103
FEco kg 1.4-DCB 1.1 20.2 2.1 1.0
FE kg P eq 0 1 0 0
GW kg CO2eq 1.3 × 104 1.5 × 105 2.8 × 104 3.3 × 104
HCT kg 1.4-DCB 36.4 77.9 44.1 16.9
HNCT kg 1.4-DCB 7.0 × 103 2.1 × 104 8.4 × 103 2.4 × 103
IR kBq Co−60eq 1.1 × 103 1.2 × 104 2.3 × 103 2.7 × 103
L m2a crop eq 0 0 0 0
MEco kg 1.4-DCB 7.6 274.5 14.5 −7.2
ME kg N eq 0.2 2.8 0.5 0.6
MRS kg Cu eq 2.2 25.1 4.8 5.4
OHh kg NOxeq 634.9 5643.1 649.6 −530.9
OTe kg NOxeq 1.0 × 103 9.0 × 103 1.0 × 103 −8.8 × 102
SOD kg CFC11 eq 2.5 × 10−3 2.9 × 10−2 5.5 × 10−3 6.4 × 10−3
TA kg SO2 eq 52.5 606.4 114.8 131.5
TE kg 1.4-DCB 7.6 × 103 1.2 × 105 1.6 × 104 1.5 × 104
WC m3 −2.3 × 100 −1.5 × 102 −2.8 × 101 −3.2 × 101

In turn, the results for MEco and TE categories were expressed in kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents (1,4-DCB eq) to characterize pollutant emissions. Scenario 2 contributed 274.5 and 1.2 × 105 kg 1,4-DCB eq per FU (functional unit), respectively, whereas Scenarios 1 and 3 showed corresponding values of 7.6 and 7.6 × 103, and 14.5 and 1.6 × 104 kg 1,4-DCB eq per FU, respectively.

For the FRS category, as mentioned previously, the lycopene extraction process was identified as the main environmental hotspot, where most of the energy consumption is concentrated. In La Plata (Buenos Aires, Argentina), natural gas and oil are the primary fuels used for thermal electricity generation, thereby contributing to fossil resource scarcity. Scenario 2 consumed 3.7 × 104 kg oil eq per FU, whereas Scenarios 3 and 4 showed values of 6.9 × 103 and 7.9 × 103 kg oil eq per FU, respectively (Table 6).

For the category HNCT, expressed in kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents (kg 1,4-DCB eq), Scenarios 1 and 3 showed comparable values of 7.0 × 103 and 8.4 × 103 kg 1,4-DCB eq, respectively, while Scenario 2 contributed 2.1 × 104 kg 1,4-DCB eq. The use of toxic solvents and the fuel consumption associated with electricity production generated industrial process emissions that have been linked to adverse effects on human health.39,40

Finally, Freshwater ecotoxicity (FEco), Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), Ionizing radiation (IR) and Terrestrial acidification (TA) contributed to the environmental impact to a minor degree. However, Scenario 2 showed the highest values compared to the other scenarios. FEco and HCT contributed 20.2 and 77.9 kg 1,4-DCB eq, respectively, Ionizing radiation (IR), with 1.2 × 104 kBq Co-60 eq, and Terrestrial acidification (TA), with 606.4 kg SO2 eq. All of these are related to the emission of gases generated during industrial processes that contribute to the toxicity and acidification of the terrestrial ecosystem, with direct impacts on human health and environmental toxicity.

3.3. Sensitivity analysis

Lycopene in fresh tomatoes occurs predominantly in the all-E form (more than 90%).41 However, in the human body, the Z-isomers of lycopene are more soluble than E-ones, and form micelles, thereby facilitating intestinal absorption.42 Furthermore, studies indicate that the intestinal absorption and antioxidant activity of Z-isomers, particularly 5-Z-lycopene, are superior. Isomerization occurs not only during digestion, but also as a result of temperature, for example, during extraction processes.41 Nevertheless, many studies have reported that the Z-isomers of carotenoids exhibit equal or even higher antioxidant capacity compared with their all-E counterparts,43 and display similar functionality, such as anti-obesity activity.44 The increased formation of Z-isomers may enhance lycopene bioaccessibility and antioxidant potential, as these isomeric forms are generally more stable than E-isomers against heat and light and more readily incorporated into biological membranes.

In this work, the isomerization analysis demonstrated that, within each solvent system (Scenarios 1 vs. 3 and Scenarios 2 vs. 4), the introduction of ultrasound shifted the carotenoid profile toward a greater proportion of Z-isomers, whereas the conventional extractions consistently favored the formation of E-isomers (Table 4). In other words, Scenarios 3 and 4 showed higher proportions of Z-isomers compared with their counterparts obtained without ultrasound-assisted extraction (Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively). This shift in lycopene isomerization can be attributed to the temperature increase during the ultrasound-assisted extraction process.42

When comparing the effect of the solvents on the functionality of the extracts, it is worth noting that the use of ethyl acetate led to a higher proportion of E-isomers than the mixture of hexane, acetone, and ethanol (50[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25, v/v), because E-isomers are less soluble than Z-isomers in non-polar solvents such as hexane.43 This finding is consistent with the higher antioxidant activity-to-lycopene ratio observed under these conditions (Scenario 2 vs. 1 and Scenario 4 vs. 3) (Table 4).

As shown in Section 3.1, Scenario 2 resulted in the lowest lycopene yield, considerably lower than that obtained in the other three scenarios (Table 4). However, it exhibited the highest antioxidant capacity relative to the amount of lycopene extracted. Therefore, the functional unit of the baseline LCA was adjusted to account for this relationship, and a sensitivity analysis was performed by adjusting the inputs and outputs according to the ratio between extracted lycopene content and antioxidant activity (Table 7).

Table 7 Inputs and outputs used in the sensitivity analysis after adjusting the functional unit according to the antioxidant activity-to-lycopene ratio
  Unit Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Inputs
Tomatoes pulp preparation
Tomatoes Kg 10[thin space (1/6-em)]428 17[thin space (1/6-em)]652 9352 5889
Electricity MJ 12[thin space (1/6-em)]200 20[thin space (1/6-em)]653 10[thin space (1/6-em)]942 6890
Tap water L 20[thin space (1/6-em)]855 35[thin space (1/6-em)]304 18[thin space (1/6-em)]704 11[thin space (1/6-em)]779
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Lycopene extraction
Solvent L        
Hexane   8811   7903  
Acetone   4406   3951  
Ethanol   4406   3951  
Ethyl acetate     29[thin space (1/6-em)]832   9953
Deionized water L 11[thin space (1/6-em)]014 18[thin space (1/6-em)]645 9878 6221
Electricity MJ 27[thin space (1/6-em)]315 46[thin space (1/6-em)]240 67[thin space (1/6-em)]419 42[thin space (1/6-em)]455
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Solvent recovery
Lycopene in extract Kg 5066 23[thin space (1/6-em)]680 4491 8350
Electricity MJ 484 2460 434 821
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Outputs
Tomatoes pulp preparation
Liquid waste L 24[thin space (1/6-em)]316 41[thin space (1/6-em)]163 21[thin space (1/6-em)]808 13[thin space (1/6-em)]733
Organic waste Kg 5866 9929 5261 3313
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Lycopene extraction
Organic waste Kg 1099 1864 986 621
Chemical waste Kg 17[thin space (1/6-em)]944 18[thin space (1/6-em)]645 16[thin space (1/6-em)]094 6221
Lost solvent Kg        
Hexane   757   731  
Acetone          
Ethanol          
Ethyl acetate     3229   628
[thin space (1/6-em)]
Solvent recovery
Solvent Kg 5064 23[thin space (1/6-em)]680 4490 8349
Dried lycopene Kg 2 0.3 1.8 1

After this adjustment, Scenario 4 represented the most favorable situation, and Scenario 2 shifted from the least sustainable state to an intermediate level of sustainability (Fig. 4). Scenarios 1 and 3, however, exerted negative effects on most environmental impact categories. In Scenario 4, ozone formation in terrestrial ecosystems (OTe), ozone formation in human health (OHh) and marine ecotoxicity (MEco) presented negative values, which could reflect environmental benefits mainly resulting from ‘avoided’ emissions, either by directly reducing NOx and VOC concentrations or by indirectly avoiding electricity consumption.45,46 The main contributing categories remained consistent with the baseline LCA (OHh, OTe, MEco, TE, FRS, HNCT). Nevertheless, Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT) appeared in Scenarios 1 and 3 (Fig. 5), likely associated with secondary emissions from industrial processes, such as those arising from energy production, metals, or combustion by-products, rather than from the use of solvents (e.g., hexane or ethanol).47,48 Additionally, Scenario 4 required the smallest amount of tomato discards to achieve the same level of antioxidant activity relative to the amount of lycopene extracted (Table 7).49 Therefore, its potential application at the pilot scale appears highly promising, given the proven scalability of ultrasound-assisted extraction, its efficiency, and its well-documented and widespread implementation at the industrial level.50–52


image file: d5fb00899a-f4.tif
Fig. 4 Sensitivity analysis illustrating the relative environmental performance of the four extraction scenarios after adjusting the functional unit based on the antioxidant activity.

image file: d5fb00899a-f5.tif
Fig. 5 Percentage contribution of each extraction scenario to the overall environmental impact, as determined following the sensitivity analysis. FPMF: fine particulate matter formation; FRS: fossil resource scarcity; FEco: Freshwater ecotoxicity; FE: Freshwater eutrophication; GW: global warming; HCT: human carcinogenic toxicity; HNCT: human non-carcinogenic toxicity; IR: ionizing radiation; L: land use; MEco: marine ecotoxicity; ME: Marine eutrophication; MRS: Mineral resource scarcity; OHh: ozone formation, human health; OTe: ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems; SOD: stratospheric ozone depletion; TA: terrestrial acidification; TE: terrestrial ecotoxicity; WC: water consumption.

4 Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the valorization of tomato discards through lycopene recovery can contribute to waste reduction and resource efficiency within sustainable food systems. The comparative LCA revealed that ultrasound-assisted extraction with ethyl acetate (Scenario 4) achieved the best environmental performance, primarily due to its lower energy requirements and reduced fossil resource consumption. Conversely, conventional extraction with ethyl acetate (Scenario 2) initially appeared as the least sustainable; however, when lycopene yield and antioxidant capacity were jointly considered, its relative performance improved substantially.

The sensitivity analysis, performed by adjusting the inputs and outputs of the four scenarios according to the antioxidant activity-to-lycopene ratio, revealed markedly different results, shifting the least favorable scenario (Scenario 2) to an intermediate position. This analysis proved essential for refining the interpretation of results and highlighted the importance of considering LCA as a dynamic process that incorporates feedback among different stages of analysis to improve accuracy and avoid misinterpretation. Integrating functional efficiency metrics, such as antioxidant activity, into environmental assessments enables a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability outcomes. In addition, since energy consumption represents the primary hotspot in the lycopene extraction stage, its influence was particularly evident in impact categories such as ozone formation, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fossil resource scarcity, which are directly associated with electricity use and energy origin. Therefore, future improvements should prioritize substituting conventional energy sources with cleaner alternatives, such as wind power, in order to further enhance the environmental performance and overall sustainability of the lycopene recovery process.

Finally, the results of this work indicate that solvent selection and energy optimization are key levers for reducing environmental impacts in bioactive compound extraction, and that adopting green solvents together with ultrasound-assisted technologies provides a viable route toward low-impact, circular processes that increase the added value of tomato residues while supporting sustainable food production and waste valorization.

Author contributions

NDC conducted the experimental work, methodology design, data interpretation and curation, and formal analysis. E. G. contributed to the conceptualization, methodology design, supervision of the experimental procedures, and data interpretation. A. G.-Z. conceived the study, coordinated the research, contributed to the writing, review, and editing of the manuscript, and funding acquisition. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article. Additional datasets related to the analytical determinations and LCA calculations are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Argentinean Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion (ANPCyT) (Project PICT(2020)/0482 and PICT(2019)/2428). A. G-Z. and E. G. are members of the research career of the Argentinean Research Council (CONICET). N. D. C. is a postdoctoral fellow of CONICET. Prof. C. Franca is acknowledged for generously providing the tomato waste from Quinta Flores.

References

  1. Z. Guan, T. Biswas and F. Wu, The US Tomato Industry: an Overview of Production and Trade, University of Florida IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2025, EDIS document FE1027,  DOI:10.32473/edis-fe1027-2017.
  2. E. J. Collins, C. Bowyer, A. Tsouza and M. Chopra, Biology, 2022, 11(2), 239,  DOI:10.3390/biology11020239.
  3. E. M. Rizk, A. T. El-Kady and A. R. El-Bialy, Ann. Agric. Sci., 2014, 59, 53–61,  DOI:10.1016/j.aoas.2014.06.008.
  4. FAO, Agricultural production statistics 2010–2023, FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs, Rome, 2024, https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3755en accessed 8 November 2025 Search PubMed.
  5. A. Arias, G. Feijoo and M. T. Moreira, Food Bioprod. Process., 2022, 135, 178–189,  DOI:10.1016/j.fbp.2022.08.003.
  6. United Nations, Sustainable Development Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015, https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12 Search PubMed.
  7. European Commission, The European Green Deal: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, EUR-Lex, Brussels, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640 accessed 8 November 2025 Search PubMed.
  8. B. Socas-Rodríguez, J. Álvarez-Rodríguez, M. Herrera-Hernández, M. Rodríguez-Delgado and M. Á. Rodríguez-Delgado, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2021, 108, 98–115,  DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.01.002.
  9. K. Szabo, L. Mitrea, L. F. Călinoiu, B. E. Teleky, G. A. Martău, D. Plamada, M. S. Pascuta, S. A. Nemeş, R. A. Varvara and D. C. Vodnar, Molecules, 2022, 27(22), 7977,  DOI:10.3390/molecules27227977.
  10. J. Gingrich, Memorandum: Color Additive Petition from Center for Science in the Public Interest, Request to Revoke Color Additive Listing for Use of FD&C Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Division of Food Ingredients, Regulatory Branch, 2024, Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0437, 21 CFR Part 74 Search PubMed.
  11. S. Kobylewski and M. F. Jacobson, Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, 2012, 18(3), 220–246,  DOI:10.1179/1077352512Z.00000000034.
  12. D. McCann, A. Barrett, A. Cooper, D. Crumpler, L. Dalen and K. Grimshaw, et al., Lancet, 2007, 370(9598), 1560–1567,  DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3.
  13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Color Additive Petition from Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00830/color-additive-petition-from-center-for-science-in-the-public, accessed 8 November 2025.
  14. Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/63, Official Journal of the European Union, 2022, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/63/oj Search PubMed.
  15. A. Negi, Sustain. Chem., 2025, 6, 23,  DOI:10.3390/suschem603002.
  16. M. Baker, Z. Xu and C. Jones, Food Qual. Prefer., 2022, 97, 104475,  DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104475.
  17. BBC Research, The Global Market for Carotenoids, https://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/food-and-beverage/the-global-market-for-carotenoids.html, accessed 8 November 2025.
  18. J. Bogue and L. Repar, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2023, 132, 45–57,  DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2022.12.015.
  19. K. Topolska, A. Florkiewicz and A. Filipiak-Florkiewicz, Food Qual. Prefer., 2021, 91, 104197,  DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104197.
  20. A. Rashidinejad, Future Postharvest Food, 2024, 1(2), 266–273,  DOI:10.1002/fpf2.12022.
  21. D. Boone-Villa, S. López and A. Martínez, J. Funct. Foods, 2019, 57, 75–88,  DOI:10.1016/j.jff.2019.03.015.
  22. J. Pinheiro, R. Ganhão, E. M. Gonçalves and C. L. M. Silva, Foods, 2019, 8(12), 649,  DOI:10.3390/foods8120649.
  23. S. Ghnimi, A. Nikkhah, J. Dewulf and S. van Haute, Sci. Rep., 2021, 11, 1–12,  DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-92211-1.
  24. R. D. Yadav and P. B. Dhamole, Biomass Convers. Bioref., 2024, 14(20), 25495–25511,  DOI:10.1007/s13399-023-04676-x.
  25. E. Nemli, S. Ozakdogan and M. Tomas, et al., Food Biophys, 2021, 16, 355–364,  DOI:10.1007/s11483-021-09674-y.
  26. Z. Lianfu and L. Zelong, Ultrason. Sonochem., 2008, 15(5), 731–737,  DOI:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2007.12.001.
  27. F. Periago, M. D. Rincón, G. Aguera and G. Ros, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2004, 52, 5796–5802,  DOI:10.1021/jf049345h.
  28. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14044:2006, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines, ISO, Geneva, 2006 Search PubMed.
  29. M. A. J. Huijbregts, Z. J. N. Steinmann and P. M. F. Elshout, et al., Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 2017, 22, 138–147,  DOI:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.
  30. A. Agraso-Otero, A. Tehseen, R. Rebolledo-Leiva and S. González-García, Ind. Crops Prod., 2025, 232, 121290,  DOI:10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121290.
  31. E. Gerbino, C. Quentier and C. Pénicaud, Data Brief, 2022, 45, 108478,  DOI:10.1016/j.dib.2022.108478.
  32. F. Chemat, M. Abert-Vian, A. S. Fabiano-Tixier, J. Strube, L. Uhlenbrock, V. Gunjevic and G. Cravotto, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 2019, 118, 248–263,  DOI:10.1016/j.trac.2019.05.037.
  33. C. M. Galanakis, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2012, 26, 68–87,  DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2012.03.003.
  34. N. J. Miller, C. Castelluccio, L. Tijburg and C. Rice-Evans, FEBS Lett., 1996, 392, 40–44 CrossRef PubMed.
  35. Y. P. A. Silva, T. A. P. C. Ferreira, G. B. Celli and M. S. Brooks, Waste Biomass Valor, 2019, 10(10), 2851–2861,  DOI:10.1007/s12649-018-0317-7.
  36. A. L. Eh and S. Teoh, Ultrason. Sonochem., 2012, 19, 151–159,  DOI:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2011.05.019.
  37. G. D. Sadler and D. J. Davis, J. Food Sci., 1990, 55(5), 1460–1461,  DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb03958.x.
  38. A. I. Olives Barba, M. Cámara Hurtado, M. C. Sánchez Mata, V. Fernández Ruiz and M. López Sáenz De Tejada, Food Chem., 2006, 95(2), 328–336,  DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.02.028.
  39. R. Metcheva, P. Ostoich and M. Beltcheva, BioRisk – Biodivers. Ecosyst. Risk Assess., 2022, 17, 7–18,  DOI:10.3897/biorisk.17.77438.
  40. Y. Zhang, A. Han, S. Deng, X. Wang, H. Zhang, S. Hajat, J. S. Ji, W. Liang and C. Huang, Glob. Transit., 2023, 5, 117–124,  DOI:10.1016/j.glt.2023.07.001.
  41. Y. Li, Y. Zhang and J. Chen, Food Sci., 2023, 44(19), 330–349,  DOI:10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20221010-090.
  42. J. Arballo, J. Amengual and J. W. Erdman Jr, Antioxidants, 2021, 10(3), 342,  DOI:10.3390/antiox10030342.
  43. M. Honda, H. Kageyama, T. Hibino, Y. Zhang, W. Diono, H. Kanda, R. Yamaguchi, R. Takemura, T. Fukaya and M. Goto, Molecules, 2019, 24(11), 2149,  DOI:10.3390/molecules24112149.
  44. S. Fenni, J. Astier, L. Bonnet, E. Karkeni, E. Gouranton, L. Mounien, C. Couturier, F. Tourniaire, V. Böhm and H. Hammou, et al., Mol. Nutr. Food Res., 2019, 63(5), e1800788,  DOI:10.1002/mnfr.201800788.
  45. N. Elginoz, K. Khatami, I. Owusu-Agyeman and Z. Cetecioglu, Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 2020, 4(23) DOI:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00023.
  46. P. Szulc, J. Kasprzak, Z. Dymaczewski and P. Kurczewski, Energies, 2021, 14(356) DOI:10.3390/en14020356.
  47. M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum and S. I. Olsen, Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018,  DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3.
  48. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Substance Information: n-Hexane; Ethanol, 2023, https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information, accessed 8 November 2025.
  49. M. Honda, Y. Watanabe, K. Murakami, R. Takemura, T. Fukaya, Wahyudiono, H. Kanda and M. Goto, LWT, 2017, 86, 69–75,  DOI:10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.046.
  50. F. Chemat, N. Rombaut, A. G. Sicaire, A. Meullemiestre, A.-S. Fabiano-Tixier and M. Abert-Vian, Ultrason. Sonochem., 2017, 34, 540–560,  DOI:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.06.035.
  51. J. Tamminen, J. Holappa, D. V. Gradov and T. Koiranen, Ultrason. Sonochem., 2022, 90, 106171,  DOI:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106171.
  52. I. Quaratesi, I. Calinescu, V. Lavric, V. Ferrara, E. Badea, P. Chipurici, E. G. Dumbravă, R. R. Constantinescu, N. D. Ignat and I. Popa, Agronomy, 2024, 14, 1452,  DOI:10.3390/agronomy14071452.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.