Evaluating the Environmental and Economic Benefits of New Technologies in Low-Salt Olive Fermentation

Abstract

The evolving modern lifestyle influences consumer dietary habits, driving the demand for new food products rooted in traditional healthy foods with greater health benefits. The Mediterranean diet, characterized by low animal fat intake and high vegetable consumption, has been shown to protect against heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Fermented olives, integral to this diet, are known for their high phenolic content, antioxidant activity, and beneficial unsaturated fatty acids. This study evaluates the environmental and economic benefits of integrating alternative/effective technologies, such as osmotic dehydration and edible coating, into conventional olive production processes, aiming to develop traditional Greek table olives with reduced salt content, enhanced nutritional characteristics, and extended shelf life. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis was conducted following the ISO 14040 and 14044 guidelines, adopting the ReCiPe 2016 (H) impact assessment methodology. Additionally, a preliminary economic evaluation including detailed planning, cost estimation, and process simulation was conducted. The results indicate significant environmental and economic advantages of the studied methods, despite more resources being required, making it a sustainable and promising approach for the production of high-quality fermented olives.

1. Introduction

The evolving modern lifestyle is closely linked with the dietary habits of consumers, influencing the demand for new food products, which is rooted in traditional healthy foods that offer greater health benefits [1]. According to scientific studies, the Mediterranean diet protects against conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and obesity and is characterized by low animal fat intake and high vegetable consumption and plant-based fat intake [2]. Fermented vegetables and fruits are popular worldwide and are a vital component to the diet in some countries. Table olives and olive products, which are integral to the Mediterranean diet, are characterized by a high phenolic content, antioxidant activity, and unsaturated fatty acids beneficial to health [3]. The fermentation process for olives relies on the use of common salt as a primary ingredient in the brine [4]. However, research has indicated that the global population consumes large amounts of salt, which is associated with hypertension and regulatory body functions, thus prompting recommendations to reduce its intake [5].

Producing foods with a reduced salt content, extended shelf life, superior nutritional value, and desirable organoleptic properties presents a significant challenge for the food industry worldwide and has been advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO) [6]. To address these needs, this study explores four preservation methods—osmo-dehydration, fermentation, edible coating, and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP)—that aim to reduce salt without compromising quality. Each step plays a unique role in creating a low-sodium, nutritionally enhanced olive product with a prolonged shelf life.

Osmo-dehydration uses low concentrations of salt and other solutes to partially dehydrate olives, which improves their texture and prepares them for fermentation [7]. By reducing the water content, osmo-dehydration minimizes microbial spoilage, which allows for reduced salt use in the subsequent stages. Fermentation is central to developing the olives’ flavor and health-promoting properties, as it generates beneficial microorganisms and bioactive compounds [8]. Using controlled fermentation with reduced salt concentrations allows the olives to retain their probiotic and antioxidant benefits, which are essential to the Mediterranean diet, while also adhering to health guidelines on salt reduction.

Edible coating is applied to create a protective barrier that limits moisture loss and enhances shelf life while also helping to retain flavor and texture [9]. This coating can encapsulate nutrients, which further contributes to the nutritional profile of the olives. Finally, MAP replaces oxygen with other gases to slow down oxidation and microbial growth, extending the olives’ shelf life and preserving their sensory and nutritional quality [10]. By combining these steps, this study aims to develop an innovative production method that enhances the health profile and sustainability of traditional Greek table olives.

While the innovative preservation methods—osmo-dehydration, edible coating, and MAP—may require more electricity than traditional olive preservation technologies, the overall environmental impact could still be favorable due to the reduction in salt usage, longer shelf life, and improved nutritional value. The integration of these methods is designed to reduce reliance on excessive salt, which is a growing concern for public health, while also enhancing the product’s sustainability by extending its shelf life and reducing food waste. This study aims to evaluate not only the health benefits and quality improvements of these innovative technologies but also their energy consumption and overall environmental footprint, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis to provide a comprehensive analysis of their feasibility and sustainability. By considering the entire life cycle, it is possible to determine whether the benefits of reduced salt, improved nutritional content, and extended shelf life outweigh the additional energy use, making this approach a viable and environmentally friendly alternative to existing technologies.

In recent years, the “green” economy aiming at a sustainable development without environmental degradation has been the apparent practice around the world in all aspects of industry, including the food production and processing sectors. Consequently, governments, non-governmental organizations, companies, and consumers are interested in increasing their knowledge regarding the production and processing of food products, along with the environmental impacts attributed to the aforementioned steps. This entails taking into account the entire chain of a product’s life cycle and all associated externalities in order to efficiently make improvements that promote sustainability and environmentally friendly production [11]. Among the tools available to assess environmental performance, LCA has been recognized as the most powerful tool for comparing the environmental impact of products, technologies, or services from a cradle-to-grave or a specific section of the product system (cradle-to-gate, gate-to-gate, or gate-to-grave) [12]. LCA is a process of evaluating the impact that a product has on the environment throughout its life cycle, thereby increasing the efficiency of resource use and reducing liabilities, and simultaneously provides a tool for environmental decision support [13,14]. For the development of new products and processes, a preliminary economic evaluation should also be taken into account. For the economic and environmental evaluation, the detailed planning of the processes and cost estimation is required. The processes are developed in simulators, and the results are supported by experimental trials, with the aim of structural improvement, energy integration, and the estimation and optimization of production costs [15].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the environmental and economic benefits of integrating alternative, sustainable technologies into conventional olive production processes. Specifically, it sought to develop traditional Greek table olives with a reduced salt content, improved nutritional properties, and extended shelf life to meet the growing consumer demand for healthier, lower-sodium options. By implementing these innovations, this study addressed the challenge of minimizing salt intake in fermented olives while preserving their sensory qualities.

Additionally, this study included a preliminary economic assessment to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this advanced production approach. LCA was employed as a key tool to assess the environmental impact throughout the entire production cycle, helping to identify areas for resource optimization and environmental improvement. Through this approach, this study aimed to demonstrate a viable model for producing high-value, health-conscious olive products in an environmentally sustainable way.

2. Materials and Methods

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was performed following the guidelines based on four steps: Goal and Scope Definition, Inventory Analysis, Impact Assessment, and Interpretation [16].

2.1. Goal and Scope

The Goal of the LCA was to determine the effect of the implementation of mild processing methods in the creation of fermented olives with a lower salt content and an increased shelf life.

A gate-to-gate approach was selected for the evaluation of the environmental footprint of a typical fermented olives industry. Specifically, the system boundaries encompass production processes from olives pickup to packaging [17].

The data utilized in this study were sourced from accessible studies cited in the references, as well as from the GABi professional and Ecoinvent databases, which pertain to the geographical area of the European Union 28 (EU-28) [18]. All the studies and data collected are relevant to the past five years.

The Scope of the LCA is defining the goals and boundaries of the study, collecting data on resource inputs and environmental outputs across all life cycle stages, assessing potential environmental impacts, and interpreting the results to inform decision-making and promote sustainability [19].

2.1.1. Product Systems and System’s Boundaries

The first case (Case A) of the present work was based on the conventional olive production, with the final products being fermented olives. The main processing steps in the conventional production include the fermentation and packaging of the olives, as pictured in Figure 1.

The second case (Case B) of the present work was based on the alternative scenario of olives production, with the final products being fermented olives with reduced salt. The main processing steps in the alternative scenario include the same steps as Case A, along with three additional processing steps: osmotic dehydration, coating production, and edible coating. A detailed representation of Case B is depicted in Figure 2.

2.1.2. Process Analysis

In Figure 3, the flow diagram of the entire production chain is presented, spanning from receiving fresh-harvested olives to the production of the final product, including all the main stages of transportation and processing.

• Osmotic dehydration

Osmotic dehydration is a natural and mild technique used to partially remove water from foods, such as olives, by diffusion in a highly concentrated osmotic solution, typically composed of sugar or salt [20]. This process operates on the principle of osmosis, where water is transported from an area of low solute concentration, such as the inside part of the olives, to an area of high solute concentration, which, in the current study, is the external solution, through a semipermeable membrane [21]. More specifically, the olives are placed in a suitable container with a hypertonic solution, such as a 50% w/w glycerol in water, which causes the removal of water from the olives and the entrance of dissolved solid substances from the osmotic solution. The ratio of olives to osmotic solution is maintained at 1:5, and the procedure is conducted at a temperature of 25 °C, which is suitable for pilot-scale operations. Higher temperatures are not applied due to practical limitations at this scale, as increased temperatures could potentially affect the stability of the system and the efficiency of the process. This results in a reduced moisture content, enhancing the preservation of the olives with improved organoleptic characteristics and an extended shelf life [22].

The duration of osmotic dehydration varies depending on the desired level of dehydration, ranging from a few hours to several days [23]. For this study, a period of 20 h was selected based on preliminary experimental results. The process was conducted at ambient temperature to maintain the nutritional value and sensory qualities of the olives, which constitutes as feasible for industrial application. All olive batches underwent osmotic dehydration for 20 h in specific tanks.

The advantages of osmotic dehydration include the preservation of the olives’ texture and flavor, since the method operates in low temperatures and does not cause mechanical stresses that could damage cell walls. Additionally, this technique can reduce the salt content in olives, appealing to health-conscious consumers aiming to lower their sodium intake. Economically and environmentally, osmotic dehydration offers various benefits by minimizing the need for intensive processing and reducing energy consumption, thus making production more sustainable.

• Fermentation

Fermentation is a traditional technique for preserving and processing foods, such as olives, to enhance their taste, texture, and shelf life [8]. This process is facilitated by beneficial microorganisms, such as bacteria and yeasts, which metabolize sugars and other nutrients in the food, producing organic acids, carbon dioxide, and other metabolic products [24]. These fermentation products act as natural preservatives, lowering the pH and creating an environment unfavorable for the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. Additionally, fermentation can enrich foods with probiotics, improving their digestibility and nutritional value while imparting unique taste and aroma properties.

Typically carried out once a year over a period of 4–6 months, depending on climatic conditions and olive quality, the fermentation process conventionally uses an 8% w/w brine solution. However, according to recent studies, efficient fermentation is also achieved with lower brine concentrations; thus, in the present study, the brine concentration is reduced to 5% w/w. Salt in the brine acts as a natural preservative, further aiding in lowering the pH and inhibiting pathogenic microorganisms. Overall, fermentation not only preserves olives but also enhances their sensory and nutritional qualities, making it a valuable technique in food processing.

• Edible coating

Edible coating is an alternative technique used to enhance the shelf life and quality of foods, such as olives, by applying a thin layer of biodegradable materials to their surface [25]. These materials, which may include natural polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids, form a protective film around the food [26,27]. This coating acts as a barrier against moisture, oxygen, and other external factors, thereby reducing moisture loss and lipid oxidation [9,28]. Additionally, the coating may incorporate antimicrobial and antioxidant agents for further protection.

Experimental research has identified suitable materials for edible coatings based on their gas and water vapor permeability, water solubility, and biocompatibility. Materials such as starch, pectin, and glycerol have been selected for their safety and ability to form stable and durable films [29]. This protective layer not only helps preserve the freshness and quality of the olives but also extends their shelf life without the need for utilizing chemical preservatives. Moreover, it enhances the texture, taste, appearance, and overall quality of the olives, increasing their commercial value and appeal to consumers [30].

In this study, an edible coating was prepared using a blend of starch, pectin, glycerol, and water in precise quantities to form a film with the desired properties.

In summary, the application of edible coatings to olives is a highly effective and environmentally friendly technology that supports the production of healthy, high-quality products. It offers significant benefits by protecting against microbial contamination and oxidation, improving the sensory attributes of the olives, and promoting sustainability in food processing.

• Packaging

The packaging of olives is a crucial process that plays a significant role in maintaining the quality and safety of the final product. Proper packaging protects olives from exposure to light, moisture, and oxidation, all of which can deteriorate their quality. One of the most effective methods to achieve this is Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP).

MAP involves replacing the air inside the packaging with a specially formulated mixture of gases, typically including carbon dioxide and nitrogen. This controlled atmosphere slows down the growth of microorganisms and reduces oxidation, thereby significantly extending the shelf life of the olives. The use of MAP packaging helps to preserve the freshness, taste, and organoleptic properties of olives for an extended period, ensuring that consumers receive a high-quality product [31]. In this study, the gaseous composition used in MAP involves a controlled mixture of gases, nitrogen (N₂) and oxygen (O₂). The exact ratio of gases is carefully selected to optimize the preservation of the olives’ quality by slowing down microbial growth and reducing oxidation. In this study, passive MAP was used, where the gas composition inside the packaging naturally equilibrates over time based on the olives’ respiration and the permeability of the packaging material.

By employing MAP, the shelf life of olives can be prolonged while maintaining their desirable attributes, offering a superior product to consumers. This method is widely recognized for its efficacy in preserving the quality and safety of packaged olives.

2.1.3. Functional Unit

Two functionals units were selected for the present work, in order to better visualize our data. The first one was 1 kg, and the second was 1 EUR of packaged olive products.

2.1.4. Assumptions and Limitations

The data selected for the production of olives in both cases are based on literature reviews and may not precisely reflect the current state. Consequently, there could be some uncertainty in estimating the environmental footprints. However, the primary goal of this study was to verify that the proposed methods are more environmentally friendly than conventional approaches to handling solid and liquid wastes. Therefore, it is expected that this uncertainty will not affect the findings, as it applies to both scenarios under consideration. The data obtained from the literature reviews include both experimentally measured and simulation-based values. Any uncertainties involved are not expected to affect the comparison results, since both scenarios are affected equally.

2.1.5. Data Requirements

For the collection of data and the establishment of the inventory, values were obtained from measurements conducted at PELOPAC, an olive processing industry located in Thessaloniki, Greece, between 2021 and 2024; these measurements were supplemented with literature data, and all figures were appropriately adjusted and verified through direct communication with the company.

2.1.6. Environmental Impact Assessment Analysis

The LCA was performed following the recommendations proposed by the ISO 14040 recommendations series (14040:2006 and 14044:2006) [32]. ReCiPe 2016 (H, hierarchist) was selected as a method to perform the impact assessment, with its main objective being the transformation of the 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 [33].

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory

Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) connects the processes with quantitative data according to the selected functional unit (1 kg of olives).

Table 1. LCI for conventional olives.

Process	Flow	Quantity
Fermentation	[In] Olives (kg)	1
	[In] Water (kg)	0.61
	[In] Salt (kg)	0.05
	[In] Galactic acid (kg)	0.002
	[Out] Olives (kg)	1
	[Out] Wastewater (kg)	0.67
Packaging	[In] Olives (kg)	1
	[In] Electricity (MJ)	0.00125
	[In] HDPE (kg)	0.015
	[Out] Fermented olives (kg)	1.015

presents the input and output data of every process that is included in the olive processing industry, as shown in Figure 1, and

Table 2. LCI for innovative olives with reduced salt.

Process	Flow	Quantity
Osmotic dehydration	[In] Olives (kg)	1
	[In] Glycerol (kg)	2
	[In] Water (kg)	2
	[Out] Olives (kg)	0.75
	[Out] Wastewater (kg)	4
Fermentation	[In] Olives (kg)	1
	[In] Water (kg)	0.63
	[In] Salt (kg)	0.03
	[In] Galactic acid (kg)	0.002
	[Out] Olives (kg)	1
	[Out] Wastewater (kg)	0.67
Edible coating	[In] Olives (kg)	1
	[In] Starch (kg)	0.02
	[In] Pectin (kg)	0.04
	[In] Glycerol (kg)	0.01
	[In] Water (kg)	0.93
	[Out] Olives (kg)	1.1
Packaging	[In] Olives (kg)	1
	[In] Electricity (MJ)	0.00125
	[In] HDPE (kg)	0.015
	[Out] Fermented olives (kg)	1.015

presents the data for the innovative olives with reduced salt, as shown in Figure 2. As a reference for the collection of the data and the establishment of the inventory, literature data were used, as listed below; however, appropriate changes were made, and the numbers were verified via communication with PELOPAC, an olive processing industry located in Thessaloniki, Greece.

2.3. Preliminary Economic Assessment

The main objective of the specific economic analysis is to assess the economic viability of producing olive products with reduced salt, which will be achieved by using mild processing methods such as osmotic dehydration and edible coating.

The economic viability study incorporated the presentation and analysis of an investment plan and the examination and analysis of the profitability of the investment plan. For this purpose, all factors that determine the viability of the proposed processes are examined, and the feasibility of the investment is examined from an economic point of view, estimating all relevant future economic figures. Indicatively, for the compilation and preparation of the economic analysis of the proposed alternative scenario, the following aspects are considered:

• Investment cost
• Sales and operating expenses
• Projected Income—Expenses
• Projected income statements, balance sheets, and expected cash flows
• Evaluation of the investment—Compilation of Indicators, Net Present Value (NPV)–Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
• Analysis of short-term and long-term capital needs

2.3.1. Modeling

The modeling/simulation of the olive production line involves the analysis and solution of mass and energy balances for each stage of the production process. The goal of modeling is the accurate estimation of material and energy flows, as well as the optimal management of resources, in order to achieve the desired quality and quantity of production.

For the specific olive production line, which has a capacity of 1000 tons per batch, the calculations of mass and energy balances were carried out taking into account the characteristics and aspects of the osmotic dehydration and edible coating processes. The values of the mass and energy flows were obtained by solving the relative balances for each stage of the considered utilization line.

The results of the simulation process, regarding working hours required to operate the production line, are summarized in

Table 3. Working hours for the olive production line (1000 tn/batch).

Process	Working Hours (h)
Preparation	10,000
Osmotic dehydration	10,000
Fermentation	8000
Edible coating	8000
Packaging	8800

. It includes the main processes of the production line, such as preparation of the olives, osmotic dehydration, use of the osmotic dehydration solution, edible coating, and packaging. The total energy required for the process is 2100 kWh. These flows are critical to production line planning and operation, as well as cost estimation and equipment scaling. Each stage is analyzed separately with the corresponding mass and energy flows, offering a complete picture of the production line requirements.

2.3.2. Estimating Unit Size and Cost

The estimation of the basic sizes of each piece of equipment of the new production line was carried out based on the calculations of the mass and energy balances. These calculations are fundamental for determining the required dimensions and capacity of each unit, ensuring the efficient operation of the production line and the achievement of the desired quality characteristics of the products. The analysis includes the calculation of the flow of materials and energy at each stage of production, taking into account the specificities of the osmotic dehydration and edible coating processes [34].

To calculate the sizes, basic equations described in the literature were used. These equations include mathematical models that describe the behavior of materials and energy in relation to operating conditions, such as temperature, pressure, and processing time. These calculations are critical to ensure optimal machine operation and avoid oversizing or under-sizing equipment, which could affect production efficiency and costs.

In order to estimate the equipment costs of the new production line, a detailed analysis of the purchase and installation costs of the previously described components was carried out. This analysis was based on recent data from the market and the use of reliable cost indices, such as the Chemical Engineering Indexes (CEI), which provide a method of reducing costs to current values. These indicators take into account changes in the prices of materials, labor, and other parameters that affect the total cost of equipment.

Table 4. Basic equipment sizes, total energy requirements, and costs (1000 tn/batch).

Equipment	Quantity	Capacity	Cost (2024)
Osmotic dehydration tank	25	500 lt	EUR1000
Fermentation tank	333	500 lt	EUR1000
Edible coating tank	2	500 lt	EUR1000
Energy requirements	2100	kWh	210
Packaging device	1	batch	EUR40,000

presents the equipment details, estimated base size, and relative cost to purchase and install each unit [34]. The costs have been updated to 2024 prices, thus ensuring that the estimates are as accurate and up to date as possible.

The data in Table 4 are based on detailed market research and cost analyses, ensuring the accuracy of the estimates. The cost for each piece of equipment includes purchase and installation, thus providing a comprehensive picture of the investment required.

2.3.3. Size Scaling Equations

To estimate the cost of acquiring all necessary equipment for the various elements of the considered line, Equation (1), a basic size scaling equation was used:

$$\mathrm{C} ={\mathrm{C}}_0 {\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{S}}{{\mathrm{S}}_0}}\right)}^{\mathrm{n}}$$

(1)

where C is the cost of the equipment, C₀ the cost of the base equipment, S the size of the equipment, and S₀ the corresponding size of the base equipment. The index n for a general case of size scaling is set equal to 0.6.

2.3.4. Cost Analysis

• Operating cost

Cost of materials and labor: This category includes the cost of raw materials, supplies, and laboratory charges, as well as the cost of personnel needed to operate and supervise the plant. Labor costs include social security contributions (if applicable). Labor costs should be reported as annual costs, so special provisions for holidays, sickness, etc. are included.

Cost of auxiliary flows: The costs for utilities such as steam, electricity, processing and cooling water, compressed air, natural gas, fuel oil, refrigeration, treatment, and waste disposal vary widely, depending on the quantity required, facility location, and source.

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are related to productivity (e.g., maintenance costs) but also to uptime (e.g., costs for general repairs) or tasks required on a regular basis (cleaning).

Other costs: Other costs include royalties, taxes (property), insurance, rent, administration, distribution and sales, research and development, etc.

• Capital cost

Before an industrial plant can be put into operation, a large sum of money has to be allocated for the purchase and installation of the required machinery and equipment. Capital investment, i.e., the total amount of money required to provide the necessary plant and production facilities plus the amount of money required as working capital to operate the facilities, has been calculated for each approach. Capital investment includes direct and indirect costs, as well as working capital.

The direct costs include the purchase of equipment, its installation, and the integration of instruments and controls. Additionally, piping and electrical systems, both installed, contribute to these costs. Buildings, including their services, and installed service facilities also fall under direct costs.

Indirect costs encompass engineering and supervision, construction costs, and court fees. Additionally, these costs include the contractor’s fee and provisions for emergencies.

Depreciation involves charging a manufacturing expense to recoup the initial investment in equipment, buildings, and other tangible items that make up a manufacturing plant. The most widely used method for calculating depreciation is the straight line.

• Annual total product cost

Annual total product cost is the sum of all costs of operating the unit, and the recovering of the capital investment through depreciation (10-year, straight line).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The results of the LCA for the production of innovative fermented olives with reduced salt content (per 1 kg olives) across seven selected midpoint impact categories deemed most relevant for assessing environmental and health impacts in olive production [35] are presented in

Table 5. Life cycle impact assessment results for the fermented olive production system (per kg of olives) for the selected conventional and innovative midpoint impact categories.

Midpoint Impact Categories	Case A	Case B	Difference (%)
Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon [kg CO2 eq.]	4.66 × 10−2	2.02 × 10−1	−333.26
Fossil depletion [kg oil eq.]	3.02 × 10−2	7.27 × 10−2	−141.15
Freshwater ecotoxicity [kg 1.4 DB eq.]	4.96 × 10−5	3.52 × 10−4	−610.59
Human toxicity, cancer [kg 1.4-DB eq.]	5.52 × 10−5	1.51 × 10−4	−173.37
Ionizing Radiation [Bq C-60 eq. to air]	1.34 × 10−4	6.50 × 10−4	−386.67
Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems [kg NOx eq.]	3.01 × 10−2	1.25 × 10−1	−315.95
Photochemical Ozone Formation, Human Health [kg NOx eq.]	1.87 × 10−2	7.78 × 10−2	−316.99

. These midpoint categories were chosen for their suitability in providing a comprehensive assessment of the key areas where production methods influence both ecological and human health dimensions. Notably, the selected categories, which include climate change, fossil depletion, freshwater ecotoxicity, human toxicity (cancer), ionizing radiation, and photochemical ozone formation (both for ecosystems and human health), highlight the comparative environmental impacts of conventional versus mild pretreatment methods. In particular, the results of the current state of the production line are presented in comparison with the results using mild pretreatment methods.

The results in Table 5 indicate that the environmental impacts after implementing the innovative pretreatment process appear worse than those of the current production method, with significant increases in several midpoint impact categories. The elevated environmental footprint of Case B is attributed to the incorporation of additional methods in the process line, resulting in an increase of energy, water, and auxiliary materials consumption. However, the main objective of the additional treatment is to provide functional olive products with superior sensorial characteristics and higher nutritional value that will exhibit increased market prices compared to their conventional counterparts. The functional unit was changed in order to incorporate into the assessment the increased value of the new product (low-salt intake). This is reflected in the higher prices of the new products.

Table 6. Life cycle impact assessment results for the fermented olive production system (per EUR of olives) for the selected conventional and innovative midpoint impact categories.

Midpoint Impact Categories	Case A	Case B	Difference (%)
Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon [kg CO2 eq.]	1.17 × 10−2	1.01 × 10−2	13.35
Fossil depletion [kg oil eq.]	7.54 × 10−3	3.64 × 10−3	51.77
Freshwater ecotoxicity [kg 1.4 DB eq.]	1.24 × 10−5	1.76 × 10−5	−42.12
Human toxicity, cancer [kg 1.4-DB eq.]	1.38 × 10−5	7.55 × 10−6	45.33
Ionizing Radiation [Bq C-60 eq. to air]	3.34 × 10−5	3.25 × 10−5	2.67
Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems [kg NOx eq.]	7.53 × 10−3	6.26 × 10−3	16.81
Photochemical Ozone Formation, Human Health [kg NOx eq.]	4.67 × 10−3	3.89 × 10−3	16.60

presents the impact assessment results per euro (EUR) of product. Prices were estimated based on 2024 market rates in Greece, with Case A priced about EUR 4 and Case B about EUR 20. This approach allows for a clearer understanding of the trade-offs between environmental impacts and economic gains, enabling an evaluation of the benefits of the new production method when assessed in financial terms. By comparing impacts per euro, the analysis reveals the potential value of the innovative process relative to its environmental cost, providing valuable insight for future improvements and decision-making.

The contribution of each process to the final footprint of the selected midpoint impact categories is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the system endpoint impact categories, which include human health impacts measured in Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY), ecosystem impacts measured in species loss over time (species.yr), and resource availability expressed in monetary terms ($). These categories assess the environmental and societal impacts associated with the production of 1 kg of conventional and innovative olives. Human health impacts (DALY) reflect the potential health risks posed by emissions and pollutants generated during olive production. Ecosystem impacts (species.yr) quantify the potential loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functions due to agricultural practices, while resource availability ($) accounts for the depletion and economic costs of using natural resources. The comparison between conventional and innovative olive production systems in these figures highlights the sustainability advantages or trade-offs of the innovative methods in reducing negative impacts on human health, ecosystems, and resource consumption.

3.2. Interpretation

The LCA results for innovative low-salt fermented olives, utilizing both osmotic dehydration and edible coating, reveal critical environmental insights.

The edible coating method provides substantial environmental advantages, demonstrating exceptionally low CO₂ emissions (both excluding and including biogenic carbon), indicating a minimal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Water and fossil fuel consumption for this method are also extremely low, making it particularly environmentally friendly. Additionally, the toxicity indicators for both humans and ecosystems are nearly zero, underscoring the safety and sustainability of the production process. Overall, the edible coating method offers significant environmental benefits, contributing to the more sustainable production of fermented olives with minimal impact on crucial environmental indicators.

Osmotic dehydration, while offering certain environmental benefits, generally shows higher environmental impacts than edible coating, with noticeable increases across several impact categories. Table 6 reveals a 13.35% reduction in climate change impact (measured as CO₂ equivalent emissions, excluding biogenic carbon) for osmotic dehydration. However, this reduction comes despite the method’s high energy and resource demands, primarily due to glycerol and other osmotic agents used in the process. Figure 4 highlights that osmotic dehydration is the dominant contributor to the overall environmental footprint of olive production, largely because of glycerol’s significant energy and resource requirements. Glycerol’s high emissions and resource depletion metrics are evident in its substantial role across various environmental categories. In contrast, other production stages have relatively lower impacts, suggesting that enhancing the osmotic dehydration process could substantially lower the environmental footprint of the entire production process. While osmotic dehydration has relatively lower environmental efficiency in some respects, its overall impacts remain within acceptable thresholds. The sustainability of this method could be significantly improved through green technologies and optimized resource management, making it a viable option for producing fermented olives with reduced environmental impacts.

LCA also compares conventional fermented olives with innovative olives that feature a reduced salt content. The innovative olive shows notable reductions in various environmental impact categories, highlighting its environmental and nutritional benefits. In the climate change category (excluding biogenic carbon), the innovative olives exhibit a 13.35% reduction in CO₂ emissions compared to conventional production. This reduction increases further when biogenic carbon is considered, underscoring the potential climate benefits of this new production approach.

The innovative method also contributes positively to photochemical ozone formation, with reductions in the impact to ecosystems (16.81%) and human health (16.60%), as shown in Table 6. However, the process incurs increases in fine particulate matter emissions by 35.11% and fossil fuel consumption by 20.40%. These impacts suggest areas for improvement, particularly through renewable energy adoption and fine particulate matter emissions mitigation technologies.

Human toxicity indicators also show an increase, with a 45.33% rise in carcinogenic toxicity. The reduced salt content in the innovative fermented olives provides significant health benefits by lowering the sodium intake, which is linked to reduced risks of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. This aligns with global health recommendations aimed at reducing dietary salt, making these olives an attractive option for health-conscious consumers. A lower salt content also enhances their culinary versatility and appeal in low-sodium diets, meeting the growing demand for healthier, functional foods. Additionally, optimizing the salt levels in the fermentation process may promote beneficial microbial activity, potentially adding probiotic qualities that support gut health, further enhancing the olives’ nutritional value and market potential.

The decrease in freshwater ecotoxicity (42.12%) and freshwater eutrophication (691.02%) for the innovative olives suggest a need for enhanced waste management practices to minimize impacts on aquatic ecosystems. These findings indicate that the production process could benefit from using more environmentally friendly chemicals and improved safety measures.

Despite some areas requiring improvement, the innovative method’s overall environmental advantages justify the additional resources required for production. Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 further illustrate these benefits, highlighting the reduced negative effects on human health (in DALYs), as well as enhanced resource availability (measured in economic terms). These reductions suggest that, while the innovative olive production method involves higher resource consumption and costs, it yields a healthier, environmentally friendlier product. The investments in optimized processing yield clear environmental and health benefits that support sustainable production and provide a nutritionally beneficial product with a reduced salt content.

However, it is important to note that the innovative olive production method has a negative impact on ecosystem health, measured in species-years. This approach may lead to decreased biodiversity and a diminished capacity to sustain various species over time. Although the optimized processing practices offer certain environmental and health benefits, they do not fully mitigate the detrimental effects on ecosystem health. Consequently, while the product is nutritionally beneficial and has a reduced salt content, the overall impact on ecosystem health raises concerns about its long-term sustainability and environmental quality.

3.3. Results of Preliminary Economic Assessment

The economic analysis of the innovative olive processing line, designed to handle 200 tons of olives annually, demonstrates both the feasibility and profitability of the investment. The total cost for the purchase and installation of equipment is EUR 150,000, as shown in

Table 7. Equipment cost analysis.

Equipment	Total Cost (EUR)	Percentage (%)
Osmotic dehydration Tanks	25,000	16.7
Fermentation Tanks	80,000	53.4
Edible Coating Tanks	5000	3.4
MAP Device	40,000	26.7

. A significant portion of this cost (74%) is attributed to the tanks used for osmotic dehydration, fermentation, and edible coating, while the MAP machine accounts for 26%. This breakdown reveals the primary cost drivers for the equipment investment, with the fermentation process being the most capital-intensive.

When considering the annual production of 200 tons of olives, the unit cost of processing is calculated at EUR 0.88 per kilogram. However, accounting for equipment depreciation over a 5-year period increases the total product cost (TPC) to EUR 1.04 per kilogram. This moderate increase highlights the importance of depreciation in capital-intensive industries and underscores the need to factor in equipment life cycle costs when planning investments.

The chosen selling price of EUR 5.8 per kilogram, which includes all direct and indirect costs, suggests a profitable margin. This price, which meets all investment criteria, provides a healthy buffer above the TPC of EUR 1.04 per kilogram, ensuring profitability even after accounting for operational and depreciation costs. The relatively high selling price reflects both the innovative nature of the olive product and the niche market it targets, justifying the investment in new processing technologies (

Table 8. Capital investment analysis.

	Calculated Values [MEUR]
Total direct costs	0.45
Total indirect costs	0.21
Fixed capital investment (FCI)	0.65
Working capital (WC)	0.12
Total capital investment (TCI)	0.78

).

Table 9. Operating cost analysis.

Item	Cost (MEUR/y)	% Contribution to TPC Without Depreciation
Input materials	0.59	67.05
Operating labor and supervision	0.13	14.77
Utilities and services	0.00	0.00
Maintenance and repairs	0.01	1.14
Others	0.01	1.14
Fixed charges (Taxes, Insurance, Rent)	0.01	1.14
Overheads	0.06	6.82
General expense (Administration, Distribution, R&D)	0.07	7.95
Total product cost without depreciation	0.88
Depreciation (7 years, straight)	0.16
Total product cost (TPC)	1.04

outlines the annual TPC, which includes variable costs, manufacturing costs, and general expenses.

The total TPC, including depreciation, is EUR 1.04 M per year. This cost demonstrates that, while manufacturing costs and variable costs dominate the annual budget, general expenses remain relatively low at EUR 0.07 M, contributing to the overall cost efficiency of the operation.

More specifically, the input materials constitute the largest share of the TPC, amounting to over two-thirds (67.05%) of the total. The dominance of the input materials suggests that the production cost is heavily reliant on raw material expenses, indicating that any fluctuation in material prices could significantly impact the overall TPC. Labor costs, though substantially lower than material costs, still play a crucial role in the TPC, contributing nearly 15%. This implies that labor is an essential operational component, but its cost is secondary to materials. With no allocation for utilities and services, it seems that these costs are negligible.

Regarding Maintenance and Repairs, Others, and Fixed Charges (1.14% each), though individually minor at just over 1%, they collectively indicate that minimal spending is allocated for upkeep, miscellaneous costs, and fixed charges like taxes and insurance. This low percentage is favorable for the operation’s efficiency, but significant costs in these areas could disrupt the cost structure.

Overheads contribute a modest 6.82%, a reasonable figure indicating that additional costs (e.g., indirect labor and general operating expenses) are kept at manageable levels. This balanced percentage helps control total costs without excessive overhead burdens. General expenses for administration, distribution, and R&D contribute close to 8%, representing necessary business functions beyond direct production costs. This allocation shows an investment in essential business operations and development.

This cost breakdown highlights that the TPC is predominantly driven by input material expenses followed by labor, with relatively low costs attributed to other areas. The emphasis on material costs implies that any strategy to control or negotiate material prices would be crucial in optimizing the TPC.

Figure 8, which illustrates the trend of the unit product selling price in relation to production capacity, reveals a clear inverse relationship: as the production capacity increases, the unit selling price decreases. This is an expected result due to the economies of scale, where fixed costs are spread over a larger production volume, reducing the unit cost. The graph also compares the pricing of innovative olive products to comparable commercial products, shown by dashed lines. Notably, even at lower production capacities, the innovative olive products remain competitive within the market. This suggests that the investment not only meets profitability benchmarks but also positions the innovative products favorably against traditional market offerings.

The comprehensive economic analysis confirms the investment’s viability and profitability in the innovative olive processing line. Considering the minimum guaranteed return and investment risk, there is sufficient flexibility to cover these aspects while remaining within market price ranges. Various investment scales were tested, showing that, after reaching a processing capacity of around 100 tons, the cost per unit begins to plateau. The competitive unit cost, combined with a strategic selling price, ensures market viability, while the scalability of the operation allows for further cost reductions as the capacity grows. This balance between cost control and product innovation positions the investment as an attractive opportunity in the food processing industry. The analysis further underscores the importance of strategic planning in both capital expenditures and operational costs to achieve long-term profitability.

4. Conclusions

The LCA of the conventional olive fermentation method with the innovative method with reduced salt, using osmotic dehydration and edible coating, highlights significant differences and environmental benefits. The innovative methods offer remarkable environmental and nutritional advantages, despite requiring more resources. In particular, adopting the practices presented in Case B contributes significantly to the reduction in CO₂ emissions, aiding climate change mitigation. Additionally, it improves air quality by reducing ozone formation, benefiting both human health and ecosystems. Case B also shows a significant decrease in fossil depletion and human toxicity related to cancer, further solidifying the environmental benefits derived by the utilization of the studied additional methods in the olive production industry. However, a significant increase in freshwater ecotoxicity is observed, which can be mitigated through process improvements, such as using more efficient technologies, substituting key materials like glycerol with eco-friendly alternatives, and enhancing waste management.

The preliminary economic analysis supports the viability of the innovative method. The total equipment cost amounts to EUR 150,000, which includes the purchase of tanks for osmotic dehydration, fermentation, and edible coating, as well as the acquisition of a MAP device. The unit cost is EUR 0.88 per kilogram of olives (with an annual production of 200 tons), while the total unit TPC with depreciation is EUR 1.04 per kilogram. The estimated value of the unit (kg) of the innovative olive product is EUR 5.80, considering the data for sustainable investment returns. The scaling analysis showed that the unit price of the product is within the range of prices for comparable commercial products.

The innovative method of fermenting olives with reduced salt and edible coating offers significant environmental and nutritional benefits. It reduces negative health impacts and improves ecosystem health, making it a sustainable approach to olive production. While the method requires more resources, the resulting healthy product with clear environmental advantages justifies the investment. LCA and economic analysis show that challenges such as increased fine particulate emissions and freshwater use can be mitigated with further improvements. Overall, Case B is a sustainable, economically viable approach that aligns with modern environmental and health standards.