Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Household Food Processing on Pesticide Residues in Oranges (Citrus sinensis)
Next Article in Special Issue
A Preliminary Study on the Validity and Stability of Projective Methods: An Application of the Structural Approach of Social Representations with Traditional Mexican Cheeses
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Surface Treatment with Thymol on the Lipid Oxidation Processes, Fatty Acid Profile and Color of Sliced Salami during Refrigerated Storage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Conceptualizing a Product with the Food-Related Lifestyle Instrument
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 23
10.3390/foods11233919
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Food Acquisition, Hygiene, and Generation of Domestic Waste in an Academic Community during the COVID-19 Pandemic

by
Aldiane de Assis Costa
1,
Bruna Leal Lima Maciel
1,
Dirce Maria Marchioni
2 and
Priscilla Moura Rolim
1,*
1
Department of Nutrition, Postgraduate Program in Nutrition, Center for Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal 59075-000, RN, Brazil
2
Nutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 01246-904, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(23), 3919; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11233919
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 14 November 2022 / Accepted: 18 November 2022 / Published: 5 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Behavior and Food Choice—Volume II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and the closure of universities as a measure to prevent contamination directly affected academic communities. Access to food, though a basic need and a human right, was seriously affected. This study evaluated the locations and frequency of food acquisition; hand, food, and packaging hygiene habits; and household waste generation in an academic community during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research was cross-sectional and performed through an online questionnaire. Data (n = 1472) were analyzed using descriptive statistics; statistical tests were also applied, and p values < 0.01 were considered significant. Most of the population continued to purchase food in supermarkets (89.5%). The frequency of product orders from markets by delivery placed by professors and graduate students was also verified (31.7% and 24.2%). There was an increase in packaging hygiene in the studied population, as well as in fruit and vegetable hygiene; however, use of inappropriate methods was noted. This paper highlights important data on the behavior of an academic community dealing with the problem of solid waste generation during the pandemic. Moreover, there were no changes in waste generation during the pandemic, although there was an increase in packaging consumption (44%). Identifying the behavior of the university community regarding hygiene and food acquisition can help societies from the perspective of transforming habits related to food. Therefore, this research provides support for future investigations and interventions in the field of foods and post-pandemic sustainability.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In December 2019, a severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) created a pandemic without precedent, posing a threat to the health of the world’s population [1,2]. In the academic sphere, in addition to all the employees that make up the academic community, it is estimated that 8.5 million university students were affected by the closing of universities [3]. Furthermore, with university activities suspended, including university restaurants, the academic community, the members of which most likely had their meals at the university or nearby, began to eat at home [4,5].
During this global health crisis, negative socioeconomic impacts affected the population, especially individuals in more vulnerable social conditions. The health crisis and its necessary prevention measures generated great difficulties, as well as demand for food business alternatives, leading the food sector to integrate the digital food environment through food delivery apps [5].
Food and nutrition security, food security, and sustainability are dimensions of the food system, and they were strongly affected during the pandemic [6]. Imposed by the pandemic scenario, changes in the way foods were purchased occurred, such as increases in purchases via delivery and in the preparation of meals at home. The impacts on environmental sustainability were also worrying, primarily due to potential increases in waste generation in the household environment resulting from the greater use of disposable packaging [7].
Questions also arose regarding the transmission of COVID-19 through food and the contamination of surfaces and packaging. To date, there are no confirmed cases of transmission through food or records in the literature involving food in epidemics caused by other coronaviruses. However, the risks could not be denied [8,9]. Therefore, national and international recommendations regarding correct hand hygiene, working environments, contact surfaces, and correct food hygiene have been highlighted [10,11].
This paper discusses some of the perspectives on this topic. Although there is a lot of research on the subject, as well as many campaigns about the importance of hand and food hygiene, the population in general still lacks knowledge about the field, especially regarding the use of chemicals. Issues such as food hygiene and packaging at home should be studied more in the post-pandemic period, especially in relation to foodborne diseases, to ensure safer food. Another question concerns consumers’ behavior regarding food acquisition. The university community stands out as a relevant place for transformative practices for society, such as the adoption of healthy alternatives in the face of adversity, as in the case of the pandemic. The behavior mentioned above was related to the generation of household waste, such as food and packaging waste. There are few studies that have investigated the association between waste generation, pandemics and university communities.
To understand the impact of issues related to food practices and waste generation in the university community in the face of this unexpected and emergency pandemic situation, we investigated what changes occurred in food acquisition and hygiene. We also measured the environmental impacts of domestic waste generation in the academic population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to evaluate food acquisition locations and frequency, hand hygiene habits, foods and packaging, and household waste generation in an academic community during the pandemic.

2. Materials and Methods

Ethical approval: The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Onofre Lopes University Hospital (CEP-HUOL) at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), number 35918620.7.0000.5292. All ethical precepts contained resolution no. 466 of the CNS from 2012 were followed [12].
Characterization of the study and study population: The study was descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional and was performed in the UFRN academic community, with data collection between September 2020 and February 2021. This study is part of the multicenter Brazuca COVID study investigating food insecurity, nutritional status, and lifestyle among students, teachers, and technical-administrative staff in the academic community during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The academic community at UFRN consists of 30,456 undergraduates, 14,337 graduate students, and 5403 technical-administrative staff and professors according to UFRN’s estimate [13,14]. The sample size was determined by convenience from the number of people who responded to the online form (n = 1472), and non-probabilistic sampling was used. A posteriori power analysis was performed, considering the sample size (n = 1472), using the chi-squared test (X2) in GPower software (Dusseldorf, Germany). The power achieved was 86%, assuming a small effect size at 0.10 and alpha at 0.05.
Data collection: The study used an online questionnaire for data collection. All active students, employees and professors with e-mail addresses registered in the UFRN system were included; participants under 18 years were excluded. Participants were invited by e-mail to participate in the research. Before sending the questionnaire, the research was publicized using social media to reveal its purposes and relevance, promoting adherence to the study. A link to a free and informed consent form was sent in the body of the email, which clarified the research objectives and methodology. After clicking on “I agree” to participate in the research, the participant received (by e-mail) a signed copy of the informed consent form (signed by the researcher responsible for the study). The online questionnaire was prepared using the Google Forms platform (Google Forms). The questionnaire consisted of 108 questions and the average estimated time for complete response was 20 min.
Assessment of the socioeconomic profile and institutional position: The first block of questions served to outline socioeconomic profiles and the institutional position of the participant; it contained nine questions about employment, course, place of employment, sex, age, race, marital status, family income, and income changes during the pandemic period. The questions used pre-established answers, except for those referring to the educational course and location.
Assessment of food purchases: Assessment comprised one block with 1 question (how often have you purchased food to prepare your meals) and 11 response options for locations where food was purchased (free market, rural producer/family farming, grocery store/Hortifruti/grocery store/market-sourced fair, other fairs or organic producers, fruit and vegetable seller operating through phone/delivery/application, non-perishable food delivery through phone/mobile app, meal delivery through phone/mobile app, hyper-/supermarket, minimarket/grocery store, donations, at-home vegetable gardens or fruit trees), as well as a single pre-established response in relation to acquisition frequencies (0—never; 1—once week; 2—two to three times a week; 3—once a fortnight; and 4—once a month).
Assessment of hand, food and packaging hygiene: This was evaluated through a block of ten questions related to the pandemic and the previous period with pre-established answers. Questions about the frequency and method of cleaning fruits, vegetables and packaging before and during the pandemic; about products used for hygiene; and concerning hand washing before preparing food were included. The products used in the process of cleaning fruits, vegetables and packaging were grouped into products for cleaning (soap and water or vinegar), disinfection (bleach, sodium hypochlorite, 70% alcohol) and cleaning together with disinfection (hydrogen peroxide).
Generation of domestic waste: The questionnaire contained five questions about domestic waste separation, the complete use of food, increases and decreases in food waste before and during the pandemic, use/consumption of packaging and food waste during the pandemic.
Statistical analysis: Descriptive analyses were performed, testing the data distribution normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to present data in the form of means or medians with relevant dispersion measures. Categorical variables were presented through frequency distribution, and associations were evaluated using the chi-squared test. For all tests performed, in order to avoid type 1 errors, p values lower than 0.01 were considered significant, given the large sample size. Data were downloaded and codified into a database using Microsoft Office Excel 2007®. The statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 11.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Graph Pad Prism version 3.0 (Graph Pad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of the Studied Population

Data concerning the studied population are shown in Table 1.
Most of the studied individuals were female (65.8%), with a predominance of this gender in all studied academic positions. Young adults aged between 18 and 35 accounted for 71.4% of the sample, and the largest proportion (54.3%) self-reported being white, followed by brown (36.7%), which together accounted for more than 90% of the studied population. For marital status, most were single (64.9%). For family income, 30.0% received between one and three minimum wages, and 45.1% experienced changes in the family income during the pandemic.

3.2. Food Purchasing

The results for food purchase locations and the frequency of delivery orders for ready meals are presented in Table 2.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, supermarkets (89.5%), grocery stores (49.9%) and street markets (33.3%) were the locations mainly used by the research participants to buy food. Professors were the group who purchased the most food from organic fairs (17.4%) and by delivery from markets using phone/mobile apps (31.7%). Most of the studied population purchased ready-to-eat meals one to two days/week (27.3%) or almost never (22.9%).

3.3. Hygiene Assessment

Data showed that 91.8% and 97.8% of the studied population reported the habit of washing hands before and during the pandemic, respectively. Thus, hand washing was a common practice among the studied population and was performed with even greater success during the pandemic (Figure 1A).
The cleaning of fruits and vegetables before the pandemic was carried out by 80.3% of the participants. This habit increased to 90.6% during the pandemic (Figure 1B). The participants mentioned using all the products in the questionnaire’s pre-established responses (water and soap, vinegar, bleach, 70% alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, and hydrogen peroxide). Despite the satisfactory results for hygiene, when investigating product usage, there was some inconsistency and lack of information about its correct use since, both before and during the pandemic, a high percentage (75.4% and 78.1%) of respondents used cleaning products. However, there was an increase from 54.8% to 68.3% among those who started using products for disinfection (Figure 1C).
A finding considered very relevant in the analysis regarding the food–COVID-19 nexus was that concerning packaging hygiene. The products mentioned were the same used for cleaning fruits and vegetables. Comparing packaging hygiene before the pandemic (7.1%) and after the pandemic (77.0%), there was a great increase in the practice (Figure 1D), as well as greater consistency in the use of the correct products. However, the predominance of cleaning products (81.7%) before and during the pandemic (40.7%) potentially negatively affected this practice.
When an association was developed between the variables of hand, food and packaging hygiene and the responses of the participants according to the areas of knowledge, the results showed that, during the pandemic, individuals involved in health sciences cleaned packaging more (84.6%) than those involved in other areas (75%) (Table 3).

3.4. Assessment of Waste Generation

Regarding data on household food waste (Table 4), the participants pointed out that there was no increase (53.7%) or there was a decrease (43%) in household food waste. However, 44.9% of the studied academic community reported an increase in packaging consumption. On the other hand, most of the studied population (59.5%) reported not separating domestic waste into organic and inorganic waste and not producing fertilizer through composting (79.8%).

4. Discussion

Changes in eating habits occur in different contexts influenced by globalized markets, changes in lifestyles and increased consumption outside the home [15]. Further, concerns about the sustainability of the planet [16], food quality, and food risk also affect eating habits [17].
Many of these changes were felt during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid the restrictions of social isolation, the practice of food shopping continued to be carried out in person by most consumers, and the most sought-after locations for food purchasing were those presenting a greater variety of options, such as supermarkets in their various types, and those that different financial conditions [18]. These were still considered safer during the pandemic period by 70% of consumers [19]. Grocery stores and street markets followed on the list of preferences, suggesting that ease, proximity and prices remained attractive [20].
Other food acquisition locations, such as organic fairs and market purchases through delivery apps, deserve attention. In our study, professors used delivery apps more frequently, showing notable data for two contributing factors, higher income and higher education level, which reflected more comprehensive access to new technologies. In line with our findings, Costa et al. (2022), in a study carried out in Fortaleza (Brazil), outlined a profile in relation to consumers at organic fairs, and similar results were also found by Zamberlan et al. (2017) [21,22]. A study by Xie et al. (2020) in China concluded that the COVID-19 crisis had a positive impact on the attitudes of respondents towards organic food, encouraging this type of agriculture [23].
In addition to the increase in market purchases via delivery during the pandemic, innovative ready-to-eat delivery formats managed to grow, using the virtual environment as a tool for selling food [24]. The ready-to-eat delivery practice was mainly chosen twice a week by professors and graduate students. This result reinforces the purchasing power factor, since it presents a positive relationship with income and an inverse relationship with age. This points to jovial behavior—similar to the findings from the Instituto QualiBest (2021) and Conde (2022), which highlighted the frequency of this trend on weekends [25,26]—and leads to a potential hypothesis that the percentage of people who have never bought food using this tool is small and related to a lack of purchasing power, and/or fear of contamination, since COVID-19 is transmitted from person to person.
Purchasing food via delivery has increased due to behavioral trends, such as the digitalization of businesses, the use of digital channels of interaction with consumers and the feeling of security in making purchases through digital means [27]. The EY Future Consumer Index survey showed that the food segment presented a 62% drop in visits to physical stores and a 32% growth in online purchases, behaviors already noticed and pointed out by Nielsen (2020) since the beginning of the pandemic. Online purchases helped many establishments avoid bankruptcy [19,28].
Both in-person and online, food purchases caused concerns regarding possible contamination by the virus that causes COVID-19, and after acquiring the food, these feelings involved hygiene.
Hand hygiene during the pandemic was seen as a coping measure to reduce the chances of transmission, and it was necessarily maintained and did not fall into disuse [29]. A study by Gonçalves and Toriani (2021) provided data similar to the present study, showing that 94.2% performed the practice. However, Dalmolin et al. (2021) reported a divergence, showing that only 52.1% of respondents washed their hands during the pandemic [30,31].
Promotion of hand hygiene should be considered a priority awareness investment, and not only in the current situation, since it is effective behavior in preventing the transmission of disease, it is easy to perform and it has little cost [32]. It is important to highlight the impacts on human health and the risks of contamination when using delivery, mainly because, during the delivery of an order, there is contact with the delivery person, who is a potential vector of the virus. Practices must be devised to minimize this risk [33].
In addition to hand hygiene, due to certain surfaces, such as plastic, cardboard and styrofoam, being transmission channels (as they allow the virus to remain for hours or days), hygiene needs to be incorporated into the handling of packaging in the domestic routine [34]. A significant increase in the practice of sanitizing packaging has also been noticed in other studies. Before the pandemic, 68.3% of those interviewed by Gonçalves and Toriani (2021) performed the sanitization of food and packaging. This rose to 74.2% at the beginning of the pandemic. However, despite good information, this percentage dropped in just over three months, showing the importance of continuing to highlight the evils arising from a lack of packaging hygiene through public policies [35].
Therefore, food hygiene—especially for fruit/vegetables, which are most often consumed raw—and packaging hygiene, which gained notoriety in the pandemic, need to be better disseminated among the population. The lack of information about correct hygiene can lead to inefficacies. For example, it is only possible to clean using the proper sanitizer. Damolin et al. (2021) showed that 64.2% of their study population only used water to clean vegetables, and another portion used the wrong products [29]. These data corroborate those found in the present study.
As a measure to combat COVID-19, chemical sanitizing agents were recommended and made available to the population. Seventy-percent alcohol was the most widespread and commonly used product at the beginning of the pandemic, and bleach and sodium hypochlorite were the most accessible products, being suggested as alternatives by the WHO [35].
Due to the changes in food acquisition and hygiene, a higher percentage of product containers were used by households. Thus, domestic waste generation also demonstrated important changes during the pandemic. From this perspective, solid waste management, which is already a public health problem in many countries around the world, developed as another problem needing palliative solutions to avoid the negative socio-environmental effects brought by new habits [36]. On the other hand, the need to improve management of both collection and disposal of these materials, and the risk of contamination through them, has encouraged many countries to partially or totally suspend collection of domestic waste [37,38,39,40].
According to Teixeira and Mourão (2021), most people who use delivery services discard the packages involved in the order, although a minority use them for some other purpose [41]. As commerce in food and market applications further expanded in the first half of 2020—when, in Brazil, 22 million cell phones were already using a delivery application—this way of purchasing food has impacted organic waste generation through an increase in the use of disposable packaging, who presented results showing that, more than 80% of the time, food comes with more than one package [42].
The behavior report led the ABRELPE (2020) to estimate that the increase in domestic waste generation in Brazil would grow from around 20% to 25% [43], which was confirmed in the data from the present study regarding packaging consumption. Higher values were recorded in Malaysia in the early days of the pandemic, where an increase in food waste was also observed. This finding differs from our research, suggesting that participants in the academic community had no accurate perception of how much waste they produced, probably because, before the pandemic, this population consumed meals outside the home [44].
Despite being considered economically and socially important for generating more jobs and ensuring accessibility to food, as well as having been incorporated by decree as an essential activity in the pandemic period, this segment presents severe environmental problems due to the increase in packaging, especially plastic [45,46,47,48].
In addition to packaging, the increase in household food waste has led many countries to rethink the logistics of public household waste collection. Before the pandemic, when waste separation and disposal did not occur satisfactorily, short-term palliative suggestions, such as the mixed collection of all solid waste destined for landfills and incineration, caused concern, being seen as a setback. These measures went against strategies already outlined by countries. Thus, researchers and policymakers must work to raise awareness about selective collection and appeal for reductions, recycling and reuse worldwide [40,49,50,51,52].
As a limitation of this study, the online data collection might have limited the research to those with access to and familiarity with technologies and digital media. However, by the time of data collection, the university was already conducting online (remote) classes, and those vulnerable students who requested internet assistance received it. The non-probabilistic sampling may have led to a selection bias in the motivation to answer the questionnaire, which could have been higher among those who felt more affected by the pandemic. However, studying those more affected was also within the scope of the research.
In addition to being innovative, the strength of this study was its investigation of the locations and frequency of food acquisition; hand, food and packaging hygiene habits; and household waste generation in the broader academic community (undergraduates, graduate students, technical-administrative staff and professors) at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the investigated aspects are essential to understanding an academic community’s behavior in times of isolation due to a pandemic. Thus, the results can contribute to the design of public policy strategies for this population. Moreover, waste management is a problem that needs to be urgently addressed through the adoption of easy-to-implement measures. Therefore, the participation of public authorities and the population as active contributors is fundamental, and public policies should also address this.

5. Conclusions

In the studied academic community, food purchases were preferentially carried out in supermarkets during the pandemic. Practices of hand hygiene were intensified in the pandemic period, as well as fruit/vegetable hygiene. Packaging hygiene, which was not practiced previously, increased during the pandemic, but there were difficulties in choosing the correct product. Food waste was little noticed by the survey respondents; however, an increase in packaging in households was noted. Most of the studied population did not separate household waste and did not preserve food waste for reuse. Given our results, further research is needed to implement food, hygiene and sustainability strategies to control and alleviate the continuing pandemic among the studied academic community. Our results might help the programming of public policies directed toward the academic community, which are still lacking in Brazil.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M.R., D.M.M. and B.L.L.M.; methodology, P.M.R. and B.L.L.M.; data analysis, B.L.L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.d.A.C. and P.M.R.; writing, review and editing, P.M.R. and B.L.L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially funded by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (grant number 431053/2016-2). This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Onofre Lopes University Hospital (CEP-HUOL) at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), number 35918620.7.0000.5292.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, N.; Zhang, D.; Wang, W.; Li, X.; Yang, B.; Song, J.; Zhao, X.; Huang, B.; Shi, W.; Tan, W.; et al. A novel coronavirus from pneumonia patients in China, 2019. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. WHO. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2021 (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  3. Cohen, J.; Kupferschmidt, K. Countries test tactics in ‘war’ against COVID-19. Science 2020, 367, 1287–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Leite, A.C.B.; Grilo, L.P.; Caleffi, F.; Mariath, A.B.; Stuker, H. Quality of life and health conditions of nutrition students. Rev. Space Health 2011, 13, 82–90. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cansian, A.C.C.; Gollino, L.; Alves, J.B.O.; Pereira, E.M.S. Assessment of fruit and vegetable intake among university students. Nourish 2012, 37, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  6. Galanakis, C.M. The food systems in the era of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic crisis. Foods 2020, 9, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. OPEN Brazilian Association of Cleaning and Waste Companies. Recommendations for Solid Waste Management during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. 2020. Available online: https://abrelpe.org.br/abrelpe-no-combate-a-covid-19/ (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  8. Islam, M.S.; Sarkar, T.; Khan, S.H.; Mostofa Kamal, A.H.; Hasan, S.M.M.; Kabir, A. COVID-19-Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 1621–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Franco, B.D.G.M.; Landgraf, M.P.; Uelinton, M. Alimentos, SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: Possible contact, unlikely transmission. Adv. Stud. 2020, 34, 189–202. [Google Scholar]
  10. FAO/WHO. COVID-19: Guidance for Preventing Transmission of COVID-19 Food Businesses Updated Guidance. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb6030en/ (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  11. Lewis, D. COVID-19 rarely spreads through surfaces. So why are we still deep cleaning? Nature 2021, 590, 26–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brazil. Resolution No. 466, of 12 December 2012. Provides for guidelines and regulatory standards for research involving human beings. Official Gazette of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Brasília, DF. 13 June 2013. Available online: http://bit.ly/1mTMIS3 (accessed on 10 January 2021).
  13. UFRN em números 2017–2019. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGQzNmRiMTUtYTg5NC00NDNiLWIyMWMtMTY3OGIxZDBjM2QzIiwidCI6IjI2MjA0MWYwLWFhZDEtNDAxZi1iMjdkLWU1YTQzYWIwMDY4MiJ9&pageName=ReportSectionf3079b4cbdab37025802 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  14. Sistema Integrado de Gestão de Recursos Humanos—SIGRH/UFRN. 2019. Available online: https://sigrh.ufrn.br/sigrh/public/abas/menu_relatorios_estatisticos.jsf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  15. Lowe, B.; Fraser ISouza, D.M.M. Changing Food Consumption Behaviors. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yue, S.; Munir, I.U.; Hyder, S.; Nassani, A.A.; Qazi Abro, M.M.; Zaman, K. Sustainable food production, forest biodiversity and mineral pricing: Interconnected global issues. Resour. Policy 2020, 65, 101583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bauer, J.M.; Reisch, L.A. Behavioral Insights and (Un) healthy Dietary Choices: A Review of Current Evidence. J. Consum. Policy 2019, 42, 3–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Silva, O.J.G.; Newton, N. Tomorrow is on the table: Food supply and COVID-19. Public Health Noteb. 2020, 36, e00095220. [Google Scholar]
  19. INSIGHTS Consumption and Pandemic: Changes in Habits and Behavior Patterns Caused by the Coronavirus. 2020. Available online: https://veja.abril.com.br/insights-list/insight-3/ (accessed on 2 October 2020).
  20. Possa, A.A.D.C.; Santos, B.C.; Padre, D.; Leal, Ê.; Freitas, E.D.A.; Agatti, F.A.D.S.; Silva, G.F.O.; Alencar, H.; Alves, M.R. Behavioral Initiatives to Reduce School Dropout by Young People Aged 15 to 29 in Times of a Pandemic. BEE 16 September 2020. Available online: https://portal.idp.emnuvens.com.br/bee/article/view/4784 (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  21. Costa, V.F.; Lima, V.A.; Sampaio, R.M.M.; Mendes, A.L.R.F.; Santos, G.C.M.; Sousa, V.S.S.; Brito, F.C.R.; Silva, I.B.; Morais, V.D.; Moreira, M.R. Consumer profile of agroecological fairs in Fortaleza. RSD 2022, 11, e29511629211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zamberlan, L.; Sparemberger, A.; Cappellari, G.; Sausen, J.O.; Baggio, D.K. Organic food: Attributes, consequences and perceived values in consumption. Rev. Agrup. Joven Iberoam. Contab. Adm. Empresas 2017, 17, 14–28. [Google Scholar]
  23. Xie, X.; Huang, L.; Li, J.; Zhu, H. Generational Differences in perceptions of Food Health/Risk and Attitudes Toward Organic Food and Game Meat: The Case of the Covid-19 Crisis in China. International Journal of Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Menighini, G.V.; Oliveira, J.C.C.; Cillos, S.V.; Piacente, F.J. Impact of the pandemic on demand for food delivery apps in Piracicaba/SP. Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, e28310615945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qualibest Institute. Know the Profile of Users of Food Delivery Applications. 2020. Available online: https://www.institutequalibest.com/marketing/know-the-profile-of-users-of-livery-of-food-applications/ (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  26. Conde, M.B.M.; Sousa, G.R.; Sousa, I.C.G.; Vieira, A.C.P.; Silva, J.F.; Seixas, V.N.C. Consumer profile of food delivery apps in the city of Marabá-PA. RSD 2022, 11, e51611125252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lopes, R.; Lima, S.; Ribeiro, S. The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on online food shopping. ICIEMC Proc. 2022, 3, 163–171. [Google Scholar]
  28. NIELSEN The Impact of COVID-19 on Fast-Moving Products in Brazil and Worldwide. 2020. Available online: https://aderj.com.br/publicacoes/nielsen-impactos-dacovid-19-nas-vendas-de-produtos-de-giro-rapido-no-brasil-e-no-mundo/ (accessed on 2 March 2020).
  29. PAHO Pan American Health Organization. WHO Defines 2020 as the International of Professionals and Midwifery. Brasília: Federal District. 2020. Available online: https://www.Paho.org/pt/noticias/3-1-2020-oms-define-2020-como-ano-internacional-dos-profissionais–enfermagem-e-obstetricia (accessed on 1 January 2021).
  30. Dalmolin, S.; Erhardt, M.M.; Ströher, J.A.; Fröder, H.; Ruis, M.; Richards NSP dos, S.; Braccini, V.P.; Jiménez, M.S.E. Food and hygiene habits in the period of social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. RSD 2021, 10, e13910615502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gonçalves, B.M.; Toriani, S.D.S. Habits related to food hygiene in times of COVID-19: A survey with students from a private higher education institution in Joinville (SC). Braz. J. Dev. 2021, 7, 18799–18811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lai, T.H.T.; Tang, E.W.H.; Fung, K.S.C.; Li, K.K.W. Reply to “Does hand hygiene reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission? Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2020, 258, 1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. São José, B.F.J.; Morais, R.C.E.; Santos, G.J.; Monhol, M.F.J.; Oliveira, C.S.J.; Oliveira, S.I. Delivery Services in Times of COVID-19: What Do You Need to Know When Receiving Food? Extension Project Good Handling Practices in Food Services: Assessment and Guidance for the Production of Safe Food. Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES). 2020. Available online: http://portal.ufes.br/sites/default/files/anexo/cartilha_delivery_ufes_2020-compactado.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  34. ANVISA National Health Surveillance Agency. Can the New Coronavirus Be Transmitted through Food? 2020. Available online: http://www.vigilanciasanitaria.sc.gov.br/index.php/149-noticias/noticias-2020/1148-anvisa-esclarece-sobre-o-novo-coronavirus-e-os-alimentos (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  35. Brazil, National Health Surveillance Agency—ANVISA. Recommendations on Sanitizing Products That Can Replace 70% Alcohol in Surface Disinfection during the COVID-19 Pandemic; Technical Note No. 26/2020/SEI/COSAN/GHCOS/DIRE3/ANVISA; ANVISA: Brasilia, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Araújo, E.C.S.; Silva, M.M.P.; Silva, A.V.; Santos, J.B.S.; Leite, J.V. Aerobic treatment of solid organic household waste in mobile decentralized systems. In Brazilian Congress of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, 30. Anais; ABES, Brazilian Association of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering: Natal, Brazil, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  37. ENGLAND COVID-19: Cleaning in Non-Healthcare Setting. What You Need to Know. Public Health England. 2020. Available online: www.gov.uk (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  38. IWMSA. Institute of Waste Management of Southern Africa. The Following Interview Was Prepared by ISWA and Completed by ISWA’s National Member in South Africa: Institute of Waste Management of Southern Africa; IWSA—International Solid Waste Association: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; 2p. [Google Scholar]
  39. WMAM Waste Management Association of Malaysia. The Following Interview Was Prepared by ISWA and Completed by ISWA’s National Member in Malaysia, The Waste Management Association of Malaysia (WMAM); IWSA—International Solid Waste Association: Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2020; 4p. [Google Scholar]
  40. SPAIN Instruction for Households on Household Waste Management and COVID-19. 16 March 2020; Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Straight. Secretary of State for the Environment. General Directorate of Quality and Environmental Evaluation: Madrid, Spain, 31 March 2020; 1p.
  41. Teixeira, K.L.; Mourão, F.V. The disposal of delivery packaging in times of a pandemic. Interação 2021, 21, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ardusso, M.; Forero-López, A.D.; Buzzi, N.S.; Spetter, C.V.; Fernández-Severini, M.D. Repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on plastic and antiviral polymer textiles causing pollution on beaches and coasts of South America. Total Environ. Sci. 2021, 763, 144365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. ABRELPE. Brazilian Association of Waste and Cleaning Business. Recommendations for Waste Management during Covid-19 Pandemic. Available online: https://abrelpe.org.br/recomendacoes-para-a-gestao-de-residuos-solidos-durante-a-pandemia-de-coronavirus-covid-19/ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  44. Botelho, L.V.; Cardoso, L.O.; Canella, D.S. COVID-19 and the digital food environment in Brazil: Reflections on the influence of the pandemic on the use of food delivery apps. Cad. Saúde Pública 2020, 36, e00148020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Large Northern River. Decree No. 30,419, of 17 March 2021. It Provides for Rigid, Exceptional and Temporary Social Isolation Measures, Aimed at Dealing with the Pandemic of the New Coronavirus, within the Scope of the State of Rio Grande do Norte. Official Gazette of the State of Rio Grande do Norte. 20 March 2020. Available online: http://diariooficial.rn.gov.br/dei/dorn3/docview.aspx?id_jor=00000001&data=20200321&id_doc=678003#:~:text=DECRETO%20N%C2%BA%2029.541%2C%20DE%2020,which%20you%20confers%20o%20art (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  46. Iodice, G. Meet the Billionaire Food Delivery Market. Forbes Magazine, Business Notebook. 2019. Available online: https://forbes.com.br/negocios/2019/06/conheca-o-billionario-mercado-de-entregas-de-comida/ (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  47. Consumer Technology. Consumer Program—Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Online Delivery Applications in Your Restaurant. 2017. Available online: http://www.programaconsumer.com.br/blog/vantagens-e-desvantagens-de-utilizar-os-aplicativos-de-delivery-online-no-seu-restaurantes (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  48. Brazil. Decree No. 10.329, of 28 April 2020. Amends Decree No. 10,282, of 20 March 2020, Which Regulates Law No. 13.979, of 6 February 2020, to Define Public Services and Essential Activities. Available online: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2020/decreto-10329-28-abril-2020-790135-norma-pe.html (accessed on 17 November 2022).
  49. ESTONIA. Ministry of the Environment. Koroonajäätmed Tuleb Teistest Eemal Hoida. 2020. Available online: envir.ee/et/uudised/koroonajaatmed-tuleb-teistest-eemal-hoida (accessed on 29 March 2022).
  50. FINLAND. Jätehuollon Varautuminen Koronaviruksen Aiheuttamassa Tautiepidemiassa. Ymparisto. Ympäristöministeriö. Sosiaali-ja Terveysministerio. March 2020. Available online: https://www.Ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Kulutus_ja_tuotanto/Suositukset_turvaamaan_sujuva_jatehuolto(55847 (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  51. NORWAY Dette gjØr avfallsselskapene for å tilby gode tjenester. Vipps, så var dt stengt—Noen steder. Miljødirektoratet. KSBedrift Avfaal. 2020. Available online: Ksbedrift.no/aktuelt/avfall/vipps-as-var-det-stengt-for-em-kort-tid/ (accessed on 31 March 2022).
  52. EUR European Union Directives. European Parliament and of the Council—EUR. Official Journal of the European Union. Waste Framework Directive. Directive 2008/98/EC. 19 November 2008. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02008L0098-20180705&from=EN (accessed on 17 November 2022).
Foods 11 03919 g001 550
Figure 1. Frequency of hand washing, fruit/vegetable washing and packaging hygienization before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in an academic community (n = 1472). (A) Hand hygiene. (B) Cleaning of fruit/vegetables. (C) Types of products used for cleaning fruit/vegetables. (D) Hygienization of packaging. (E) Types of products used for cleaning packaging (chi-squared, p < 0.0001). Cleaning: soap and water, vinegar; disinfection: bleach, sodium hypochlorite, 70% alcohol; cleaning plus disinfection: sodium peroxide.
Figure 1. Frequency of hand washing, fruit/vegetable washing and packaging hygienization before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in an academic community (n = 1472). (A) Hand hygiene. (B) Cleaning of fruit/vegetables. (C) Types of products used for cleaning fruit/vegetables. (D) Hygienization of packaging. (E) Types of products used for cleaning packaging (chi-squared, p < 0.0001). Cleaning: soap and water, vinegar; disinfection: bleach, sodium hypochlorite, 70% alcohol; cleaning plus disinfection: sodium peroxide.
Foods 11 03919 g001
Table
Table 1. Socioeconomic characterization of the studied population according to institutional positions (n = 1472).
Table 1. Socioeconomic characterization of the studied population according to institutional positions (n = 1472).
VariablesTotalUndergraduatesGraduate StudentsTechnical-Administrative Staff Professorsp Value
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
Sex
Male503 (34.2)317 (35.0)62 (25.0)60 (38.5)64 (39.8)0.005
Female969 (65.8)590 (65.0)186 (75.0)96 (61.5)97 (60.2)
Age (years)
18–351050 (71.4)774 (73.7)189 (18.0)61 (5.8)26 (2.5)0.000
36–50292 (19.8)102 (34.9)53 (18.1)60 (20.6)77 (26.4)
51–65112 (7.6)28 (25.0)6 (5.4)32 (28.6)46 (41.0)
>6518 (1.2)3 (16.7)0 (0.0)3 (16.7)12 (66.7)
Race
Asian6 (0.4)4 (0.4)2 (0.8)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0.011
White800 (54.3)457 (50.4)145 (58.5)91 (58.3)107 (66.5)
Indigenous6 (0.4)2 (0.2)1 (0.4)01 (0.6)2 (1.2)
Brown540 (36.7)360 (39.7)82 (33.1)55 (35.3)43 (26.7)
Black120 (8.2)84 (9.3)18 (7.3)09 (5.8)9 (5.6)
Marital status
Single956 (64.9)725 (79.9)146 (58.9)52 (33.3)33 (20.5)0.000
Married322 (21.9)93 (10.3)66 (26.6)75 (48.1)88 (54.7)
Stable union135 (9.2)61 (6.7)32 (12.9)22 (14.1)20 (12.4)
Divorced52 (3.5)27 (3.0)3 (1.2)5 (3.2)17 (10.6)
Widower7 (0.5)1 (0.1)1 (0.4)2 (1.3)3 (1.9)
Family income (BRL)
No income52 (3.5)48 (5.3)4 (1.6)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0.000
≤1100.00214 (14.5)204 (22.5)10 (4.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
1101.00 to 3300.00441 (30.0)335 (36.9)93 (37.5)12 (7.7)1 (0.6)
3301.00 to 6600.00301 (20.4)183 (20.2)62 (25.0)48 (30.8)8 (5.0)
6601.00 to 9900.00184 (12.5)63 (6.9)41 (16.5)45 (28.8)35 (21.7)
9901.00 to 13,200.00126 (8.6)29 (3.2)23 (9.3)30 (19.2)44 (27.3)
13,201.00 to 16,500.0061 (4.1)19 (2.1)6 (2.4)15 (9.6)21 (13.0)
>16,500.0093 (6.3)26 (2.9)9 (3.6)06 (3.8)52 (32.3)
Income change during the pandemic
No658 (44.7)343 (37.8)110 (44.4)98 (62.8)107 (66.5)0.000
Yes, increase150 (10.2)107 (11.8)32 (12.9)6 (3.8)5 (3.1)
Yes, decrease664 (45.1)457 (50.4)106 (42.7)52 (33.3)49 (30.4)
Statistical significance: p < 0.01. n = 1472.
Table
Table 2. Food purchase locations and frequency of delivery orders for ready meals during the COVID-19 pandemic in an academic community (n = 1472).
Table 2. Food purchase locations and frequency of delivery orders for ready meals during the COVID-19 pandemic in an academic community (n = 1472).
LocationsTotalUndergraduatesGraduate StudentsTechnical-Administrative StaffProfessorsp Value
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
Open fair490 (33.3)355 (39.1)78 (31.5)33 (21.2)24 (14.9)0.000
Rural producer167 (11.3)102 (11.02)30 (12.1)8 (5.1)27 (16.8)0.013
Street market328 (22.3)217 (23.9)52 (21.0)23 (14.7)36 (22.4)0.079
Organic fair94 (6.4)39 (4.3)15 (6.0)12 (7.7)28 (17.4)0.000
Vegetables by delivery160 (10.9)66 (7.3)34 (13.7)21 (13.5)39 (24.2)0.000
Delivery
by phone/mobile app		329 (22.4)181 (20.0)60 (24.2)37 (23.7)51 (31.7)0.008
Supermarket1318 (89.5)811 (89.4)224 (90.3)147 (94.2)136 (84.5)0.041
Grocery stores734 (49.9)518 (57.1)107 (43.1)56 (35.9)53 (32.9)0.000
Donations104 (7.1)93 (10.3)7 (2.8)2 (1.3)2 (1.2)0.000
At home gardens/trees 172 (11.7)117 (12.9)30 (12.1)11 (7.1)14 (8.7)0.113
Other59 (4.0)36 (4.0)4 (1.6)11 (7.1)08 (5.0)0.049
Frequency of orders for delivery of ready-to-eat meals
1–2 days/week401 (27.3)212 (23.4)89 (35.9)45 (29.0)55 (34.2)0.000
3–4 days/week134 (9.1)65 (7.2)32 (12.9)19 (12.3)18 (11.2)
5–6 days/week22 (1.5)15 (1.7)01 (0.4)2 (1.3)4 (2.5)
Daily16 (1.1)5 (0.6)0 (0.0)6 (3.9)5 (3.1)
2 days/week253 (17.2)153 (16.9)49 (19.8)25 (16.1)26 (16.1)
Monthly142 (9.7)98 (10.4)16 (6.5)18 (11.6)10 (6.2)
Almost never337 (22.9)237 (26.2)43 (17.3)27 (17.4)30 (18.6)
Never166 (11.3)122 (13.5)18 (7.3)13 (8.4)13 (8.1)
Statistical significance: p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Performance of hand washing, fruit/vegetable washing and packaging hygienization before and during the COVID-19 pandemic according to knowledge area (n = 1472).
Table 3. Performance of hand washing, fruit/vegetable washing and packaging hygienization before and during the COVID-19 pandemic according to knowledge area (n = 1472).
VariablesTotalHealth SciencesOther Areas *p Value
n (%)n (%)n (%)
Performing hand washing before the pandemic1279 (86.8)255 (93.7)1024 (91.6)0.143
Cleaning of fruit and vegetables before the pandemic1118 (80.5)222 (81.6)896 (80.2)0.516
Cleaning of packaging before the pandemic98 (7.1)18 (6.6)80 (7.2)0.638
Performing hand washing during the pandemic1358 (97.8)269 (98.9)1089 (97.5)0.160
Cleaning of fruit and vegetables during the pandemic1337 (96.3)266 (97.8)1071 (95.9)0.323
Cleaning of packaging during the pandemic1068 (76.9)230 (84.6)838 (75.0)0.003
Statistical significance: p < 0.01. * Humanities and Technology.
Table
Table 4. Generation and management of household food waste during the pandemic in an academic community (n = 1472).
Table 4. Generation and management of household food waste during the pandemic in an academic community (n = 1472).
VariablesTotalUndergraduatesGraduate StudentsTechnical-Administrative StaffProfessorsp Value
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
During the pandemic, was there an increase or decrease in food waste?
Increased150 (10.2)86 (9.5)32 (12.9)19 (12.2)13 (8.1)0.065
Decreased469 (31.9)305 (33.6)63 (25.4)51 (32.7)50 (31.1)
No change790 (53.7)472 (52.0)141 (56.9)80 (51.3)97 (60.2)
Do not know63 (4.3)44 (4.9)12 (4.8)6 (3.8)1 (0.6)
During the pandemic, was there an increase or decrease in the consumption of packaging?
Increased661 (44.9)376 (41.5)133 (53.6)71 (45.5)81 (50.3)0.002
Decreased141 (9.6)91 (10.0)21 (8.5)17 (10.9)12 (7.5)
No change570 (38.7)361 (39.8)82 (33.1)62 (39.7)65 (40.4)
Do not know100 (6.8)79 (8.7)12 (4.8)6 (3.8)3 (1.9)
During the pandemic, was there an increase or decrease in the residues?
Increased528 (35.9)296 (32.6)98 (39.5)67 (42.9)67 (41.6)0.001
Decreased187 (12.7)127 (14.0)22 (8.9)17 (10.9)21 (13.0)
No change633 (43.0)390 (43.0)108 (43.5)65 (41.7)70 (43.5)
Do not know124 (8.4)94 (10.4)20 (8.1)7 (4.5)3 (1.9)
Was domestic waste seperated into reusable and organic materials?
No876 (59.5)579 (63.8)157 (63.3)74 (47.4)66 (41.0)0.000
Do not know21 (1.4)18 (2.0)1 (0.4)2 (1.3)0 (0.0)
Yes575 (39.1)310 (34.2)90 (36.3)80 (51.3)95 (59.0)
Was organic waste used for the production of fertilizer through composting?
No1174 (79.8)691 (76.2)209 (84.3)140 (89.7)134 (83.2)0.000
Do not know39 (2.6)25 (2.8)04 (1.6)4 (2.6)6 (3.7)
Yes259 (17.6)191 (21.1)35 (14.1)12 (7.7)21 (13.0)
Statistical significance p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Costa, A.d.A.; Maciel, B.L.L.; Marchioni, D.M.; Rolim, P.M. Food Acquisition, Hygiene, and Generation of Domestic Waste in an Academic Community during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Foods 2022, 11, 3919. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11233919

AMA Style

Costa AdA, Maciel BLL, Marchioni DM, Rolim PM. Food Acquisition, Hygiene, and Generation of Domestic Waste in an Academic Community during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Foods. 2022; 11(23):3919. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11233919

Chicago/Turabian Style

Costa, Aldiane de Assis, Bruna Leal Lima Maciel, Dirce Maria Marchioni, and Priscilla Moura Rolim. 2022. "Food Acquisition, Hygiene, and Generation of Domestic Waste in an Academic Community during the COVID-19 Pandemic" Foods 11, no. 23: 3919. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11233919

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop