| Literature DB >> 35519628 |
Abstract
The food cold chain is a special type of cold chain that refers to a system in which refrigerated and frozen food is always kept in the specified low-temperature environment in all links from production, storage, transportation, sales, distribution to consumption, so as to ensure food quality and to prevent food deterioration caused by temperature fluctuation. In recent years, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought a great impact on people's life and the social economy and also threatened the large-scale food cold chain. Through the effective identification and evaluation of high-risk factors in the food cold chain, this article has found the major risks that have a great impact on the entire food cold chain and proposes the specific measures of risk management and control to solve the problems of food cold chain and reduce risks quickly and efficiently to ensure the stability and safety of food cold chain and avoid the serious food safety accidents. The contribution of this article is reflected in three aspects, namely, (1) applies the expert system based on professional knowledge and rich experience and constructs a classification and identification system structure of food cold chain risk indexes, which lay a foundation for further identifying and evaluating the major risks of the food cold chain; (2) designs a comprehensive index weighting method combining the AHP method and entropy weight method to quantitatively evaluate the major risks. This comprehensive method combines a hierarchical structure system, evaluation algorithm, subjective factor correction algorithm, and so on. The evaluation results are more accurate, have a high matching degree with reality, and have good theoretical and practical significance; (3) analyzes and explains the major risks of the food cold chain in the non-epidemic situations and COVID-19 situations. Proposals and measures for risk management and control are put forward, which have wide practical significance.Entities:
Keywords: analytic hierarchy process (AHP); cold chain; entropy weight method; evaluation model; risk assessment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35519628 PMCID: PMC9062984 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825696
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Risk factors of the food cold chain.
Description of risk indexes of food cold chain.
| No. | Rule layer | Factor layer | Sign | Index description |
| 1 | Origin warehouse (X1) | Temperature monitoring failure risk | X11 | Lead to risk of spoilage |
| 2 | Equipment detect failure risk | X12 | Lead to quality risks | |
| 3 | Time lag risk | X13 | Lead to the decreased freshness of fresh products | |
| 4 | Contamination and detection risk | X14 | The quality of fresh products is out of control | |
| 5 | Regional central warehouse (X2) | Inconsistent information standards risk | X21 | Lead to risk of loss of product quality control |
| 6 | Untimely information processing risk | X22 | Lead to risk that the product backlog | |
| 7 | Temperature control risk | X23 | Lead to risk of loss of product quality control | |
| 8 | False information risk | X24 | Lead to risk that the product backlog | |
| 9 | Front warehouse (X3) | Internal operational risk | X31 | Lead to poor logistics and reduce product quality |
| 10 | Untimely data feedback risk | X32 | Lead to risk that the product backlog | |
| 11 | Sales network failure risk | X33 | Lead to risk that the product backlog | |
| 12 | Home delivery service (X4) | Delivery delay risk | X41 | Lead to risk of poor logistics |
| 13 | Consumer demand fluctuations risk | X42 | Lead to risk that the product backlog | |
| 14 | Potential competitor risk | X43 | Lead to risks such as product backlog and poor logistics | |
| 15 | Delivery worker health risk | X44 | Lead to risk of product service not being in place | |
| 16 | Industry information platform (X5) | Industry competition risk | X51 | Lead to risks such as product retention and poor logistics |
| 17 | Information asymmetry risk | X52 | Lead to risk of unsalable products | |
| 18 | Policy and regulatory risk | X53 | Lead to risks such as high logistics costs |
FIGURE 2Flow pipe of the risk assessment using AHP-entropy methods.
FIGURE 3The calculation process of AHP method.
Scale 1–9 method of judgment matrix.
| Scale | Meaning |
| 1 | Comparing two factors with equal importance |
| 3 | Comparing the two factors, the former is slightly more important than the latter |
| 5 | Comparing the two factors, the former is more important than the latter |
| 7 | Comparing the two factors, the former is much more important than the latter |
| 9 | Comparing the two factors, the former is definitely more important than the latter |
2, 4, 6, and 8 are the scale values corresponding to the intermediate states between the above two judgments.
Average random consistency index.
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 |
Subjective weight calculation of rule layer matrix.
| Rule layer | Judgment matrix | Consistency test | Weight |
| Origin warehouse |
| λ | 0.1186 |
| Regional central warehouse |
| λ | 0.0754 |
| Front warehouse |
| λ | 0.1708 |
| Home delivery services |
| λ | 0.0220 |
| Industry information platform |
| λ | 0.1183 |
FIGURE 4AHP weights of factors in layers 1–2.
Entropy weight of the rule layer.
| Rule layer | Origin warehouse | Regional central warehouse | Front warehouse | Home delivery services | Industry information platform |
| Entropy weight | 0.1889 | 0.2116 | 0.1996 | 0.207 | 0.1929 |
Comprehensive weights of the rule layer.
| Rule layer | AHP weight | Entropy Weight | Comprehensive weight |
| X1 | 0.1086 | 0.1889 | 0.1407 |
| X2 | 0.2616 | 0.2116 | 0.2416 |
| X3 | 0.1086 | 0.1996 | 0.1450 |
| X4 | 0.2935 | 0.2070 | 0.2589 |
| X5 | 0.2277 | 0.1929 | 0.2138 |
Weights of each index by AHP-entropy weight method.
| Layer 1 | Layer 2 | AHP weights | Entropy weight | Comprehensive weight |
| Origin warehouse X1 | Temperature monitoring failure risk | 0.008 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Equipment detects failure risk | 0.058 | 0.032 | 0.048 | |
| Time lag risk | 0.01 | 0.019 | 0.014 | |
| Contamination and detection risk | 0.032 | 0.116 | 0.066 | |
| Regional central warehouse | Inconsistent information standards risk | 0.021 | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Untimely information processing risk | 0.037 | 0.039 | 0.037 | |
| Temperature control risk | 0.16 | 0.154 | 0.157 | |
| False information risk | 0.045 | 0.048 | 0.046 | |
| Front warehouse | Internal operational risk | 0.019 | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Untimely data feedback risk | 0.029 | 0.04 | 0.034 | |
| Sales network failure risk | 0.06 | 0.045 | 0.054 | |
| Home delivery services | Delivery delay risk | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Consumer demand fluctuations risk | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.102 | |
| Potential competitor risk | 0.113 | 0.146 | 0.126 | |
| Delivery worker health risk | 0.058 | 0.04 | 0.051 | |
| Industry information platform | Industry competition risk | 0.027 | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Information asymmetry risk | 0.12 | 0.087 | 0.106 | |
| Policy and regulatory risk | 0.081 | 0.029 | 0.06 |
FIGURE 5Comprehensive weights of each index by AHP-entropy weight method.