# Environmental Impact of Massive Food Services and Homemade Meals: A Case Study on Steved Chickpeas
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparative Discussion and Related Work  
The results obtained indicate that Scenario S\({}_{1}\), corresponding to the massive food service, presents lower environmental impacts in the majority of midpoint and endpoint categories when compared to homemade meals (S\({}_{2}\) and S\({}_{3}\)). This is primarily due to the absence of refrigeration and reheating processes, which are required for meals prepared at home and consumed later, as well as the efficiencies in resource consumption such as electricity and water, observed in S\({}_{1}\). These aspects are consistently highlighted throughout the midpoint and endpoint analyses.  
In particular, cooling and reheating were found to significantly increase the environmental impact in Scenarios S\({}_{2}\) and S\({}_{3}\), notably affecting categories related to human health and fossil resource use. Additionally, electricity consumption was a dominant contributor to impacts in S\({}_{2}\) and S\({}_{3}\), exceeding significant contributor to impacts in S\({}_{2}\) and S\({}_{3}\), accounting for more than 50% in nearly all categories. These findings support the conclusion that although homemade meals may offer flexibility, their preparation and storage can carry considerable environmental burdens.  
Nevertheless, S\({}_{1}\) exhibits higher impacts in some categories, such as ionizing radiation, land use, and water consumption. This is attributed to the greater quantity of ingredients used per portion, as the university food service aims to address the nutritional needs of students. This trade-off is acknowledged in the conclusions of the study's conclusions, reflecting a balance between nutrition-oriented meal planning and environmental efficiency.  
Although not explicitly compared with other literature in the original manuscript, the observed results align in part with findings from existing LCA studies on food systems, especially in terms of identifying critical processes like cooking and energy use as the main contributors to environmental impacts. Furthermore, we note that [PERSON] et al. [16] identified only one study in its literature review comparing the impacts from cook-warm and cook-chill systems in catering their literature review that compares the impacts of cook-warm and cook-chill systems in catering using pasta as a case study [28]. Their research revealed that the cook-warm method is more environmentally sustainable than the cook-chill approach, with 17% less fossil fuel depletion, 30% less freshwater eutrophication, and a 96% decrease in ozone depletion. In comparison, our research demonstrates that Scenarios S\({}_{2}\) and S\({}_{3}\) achieve 37% and 74% reductions in fossil fuel depletion, 34% and 24% lower freshwater eutrophication, and 8% and 21% larger ozone depletion impacts, respectively, compared to Scenario S\({}_{1}\).  
Additionally, as a sensitivity assessment, we introduce two ingredients in different proportions: red meat and chicken. We consider 25 and 50 g for each 100 g of stewed chickpeas and the environmental impacts regarding endpoint methodology. Figure 6 shows that Scenario S\({}_{1}\) exhibits only a slight advantage of 1-3% in terms of DALY and species.yr when considering red meat. However, when chicken is included in the recipe, Scenario S\({}_{1}\) performs significantly better, showing a 35% to 41% reduction in DALYs and a 6% to 8% lower impact on species.yr compared to the other scenarios. Furthermore, considering USD 2013, no major changes are observed, as the stage of preparation of the meat ingredients is not considered. These differences underscore the need for further research on diverse recipes and cultural traditions.