FOOD WASTE
system – as the technology does not require high heat, enzymes, water, or drainage, it is efficient to operate, reducing costs of water usage in macerators, drain repairs, and pest control. Furthermore, unlike high heat dehydrators, the end residue retains up to 90 per cent of the food waste’s calorific, nutrient, and protein values, giving it a further life of its own. The technology was designed to be robust, simple to use, and efficient. With a bin lifter on the front and one button operation, food waste can be batch or continually loaded into the system over a six hour window, greatly reducing manual handling safety risk and freeing up hospital staff to carry out other value-adding tasks. There are no feeding routines or timed schedules required to keep enzymes alive – it is simply load and leave, significantly saving operator time. The WasteMaster works with a three
phase power supply and ventilation. Food waste is loaded into the system via the bin lifter. This activates the system and large paddles in the drum to rotate and agitate the food waste. Activated oxygen is blown across the food waste producing peroxides and hydroxyls for split seconds, which break down the cellular structure of the food wall, liberating the moisture, promoting the natural decomposition of the food waste, and sanitising the food waste during the process. Every bin load of food waste is
weighed and recorded, allowing for accurate monitoring and measurement for reporting and, more importantly, targeting waste reduction. This information is available via a customer dashboard and can also highlight the greenhouse gas savings and equivalent measures for homes powered or cars off the road. 4G connectivity also allows for engineers to remotely monitor and manage every unit installed around the globe offering basic trouble shooting and diagnostics quickly and efficiently.
Case studies Kettering General Hospital in the UK was the first healthcare provider to install the WasteMaster. Food waste was previously disposed in the kitchen area via macerators which were using considerable amounts of water and this was then flushed down the drain and into the sewer system. The drains frequently blocked, which resulted in an increased maintenance requirement to unblock them. The system provided Kettering Hospital with a 35 per cent reduction in food waste disposal costs, saving a 70,000 litre annual reduction in water consumption. James Paget University Hospital in the
East of England were also using macerators to manage their food waste. However, combined with the frequent drain blockages, the kitchen was
90 Sanitised residue stored onsite.
positioned above a clinical treatment area which meant that the risk of flooding caused great concern. The Trust wanted to move away from a waste to water system, pre-empting impending legislation moving throughout the UK, but also to improve their sustainability in line with the NHS ambition to deliver a net zero NHS. Introducing our technology saved on drain maintenance, water usage, and also pest control and fines when food waste was not segregated away from general waste. Epworth Hospital, part of Epworth
Healthcare and Victoria, Australia’s largest not-for-profit private hospital group, were committed to the responsible stewardship of resources and their environmental performance. Of particular concern was the food that they sent to landfill and the greenhouse gas that this generated. In the first five months following installation, 100 per cent of food waste was diverted away from landfill, saving 12.17 tonnes of CO2
e greenhouse gases. Hollywood Private Hospital, part of
Ramsay Health Care in Melbourne Australia, also installed our system and instantly witnessed the benefit of doing so – less food waste on site, less odour, less
An estimated 8-10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with food that has not been consumed
pests, and fewer truck collections. This, along with the introduction of many other measures, has improved the hospital’s sustainability and will help protect the planet for generations to come. Independent Life Cycle Assessment (Deakin University) confirmed that sites in Melbourne using our technology would reduce their CO2
e emissions by 84 per
cent when compared to disposing of the same waste to landfill. East Suffolk and North Essex
Foundation Trust have also put sustainability at the forefront of their decision-making. With savings of £21,600 per annum and with food waste now diverted away from landfill and sewers to create green energy, this is a positive story of sustainable management providing tangible and financial benefits. Around the globe, WasteMaster
technology is now successfully improving the food waste management and carbon footprint of hospitals, shopping centres, conference centres, education establishments, hotels, large sports venues, and multiple restaurants. In the last year, Green Eco Technologies
has repurposed thousands of kgs of food waste, saving 1,600 tonnes of greenhouse gas from being created at landfill.
References 1 State of the Global Climate 2021 (WMO-No. 1290) [
https://library.wmo.int/
index.php?lvl= notice_display&id=22080#.Yt7RInbMJD].
2 Remarks at press conference on State of the Global Climate 2021 (WMO-No.1290) UN Web TV 2022 [
https://media.un.org/en/ asset/k1q/k1qn00cy8a].
3 UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2021 [
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/ unep-food-waste-index-report-2021].
4 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) 2022 data [
https://naei.beis.gov.uk/data].
IFHE DIGEST 2023 IFHE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97
