Techno-economic evaluation and life-cycle assessment of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production within a biorefinery concept using sunflower-based biodiesel industry by-products

2021 ◽  
Vol 326 ◽  
pp. 124711
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Kachrimanidou ◽  
Sofia Maria Ioannidou ◽  
Dimitrios Ladakis ◽  
Harris Papapostolou ◽  
Nikolaos Kopsahelis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
By Products ◽  
Biodiesel Industry

Techno-economic evaluation and life-cycle assessment of integrated biorefineries within a circular bioeconomy concept

2022 ◽  
pp. 541-556
Author(s):  
Sofia Maria Ioannidou ◽  
Christos Galanopoulos ◽  
Dimitrios Ladakis ◽  
Apostolis Koutinas
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Economic Evaluation

Use of life cycle assessment to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the management of sludge and biogas

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (9) ◽  
pp. 2292-2300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina Cubas do Amaral ◽  
Miguel Mansur Aisse ◽  
Gustavo Rafael Collere Possetti ◽  
Marcelo Real Prado
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Sewage Treatment ◽  
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket ◽  
Anaerobic Sludge ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Low Efficiency ◽  
By Products

Abstract Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors used in sewage treatment generate two by-products that can be reused: sludge and biogas. At the present time in Brazil, most of this resulting sludge is disposed of in sanitary landfills, while biogas is commonly burned off in low-efficiency flares. The aim of the present study was to use life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impacts from four different treatment and final destination scenarios for the main by-products of wastewater treatment plants. The baseline scenario, in which the sludge was sanitized using prolonged alkaline stabilization and, subsequently, directed toward agricultural applications and the biogas destroyed in open burners, had the most impact in the categories of global warming, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity. The scenario in which heat resulting from biogas combustion is used to dry the sludge showed significant improvements over the baseline scenario in all the evaluated impact categories. The recovery of heat from biogas combustion decreased significantly the environmental impact associated with global warming. The combustion of dried sludge is another alternative to improve the sludge management. Despite the reduction of sludge volume to ash, there are environmental impacts inherent to ozone formation and terrestrial acidification.

Production of mealworms for human consumption in Finland: a preliminary life cycle assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Joensuu ◽  
F. Silvenius
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Food Industry ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Energy Sources ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
Emission Energy ◽  
Low Emission ◽  
By Products

Interest in insect production for human consumption is growing in many European countries, including Finland. One of the main justifications for insect-based food products is their lower environmental burden compared to traditional livestock products; another is the need for new protein sources for animal feed and human consumption. In this study, we investigated the global warming potential (GWP) of the potential future industrial scale mealworm production in Finland, using existing data on input needs of mealworm production in the Netherlands and previous life cycle assessment studies of Finnish feedstocks and energy sources. We compared three scenarios, of which one was based on feeding with a commercial feeding mixture, the second on feeding with food industry by-products and the third on the use of low-emission energy sources in combination with feeding with food industry by-products. In all three scenarios, feed crop production and direct heating energy were responsible for at least 95% of the total GWP. Especially the use of low-emission energy sources appears to have potential in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of insect production.

scholarly journals Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge pyrolysis: environmental impacts of biochar as carbon sequestrator and nutrient recycler

Detritus ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 94-105
Author(s):  
Fabian Gievers ◽  
Achim Loewen ◽  
Michael Nelles
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Sewage Sludge ◽  
Life Cycles ◽  
Nutrient Cycle ◽  
Sludge Incineration ◽  
Midpoint Method ◽  
The Common ◽  
Digested Sewage Sludge ◽  
By Products

The pyrolysis of sewage sludge is an alternative method to recycle the contained nutrients, such as phosphorus, by material use of the resulting biochar. However, the ecological effects of pyrolysis are not easy to evaluate. Therefore, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to determine the environmental impact of sewage sludge pyrolysis and to compare it with the common method of sewage sludge incineration. In order to identify the most sustainable applications of the resulting biochar, four different scenarios were analyzed. The modeled life cycles include dewatering, drying and pyrolysis of digested sewage sludge and utilization paths of the by-products as well as various applications of the produced biochar and associated transports. The life cycle impact assessment was carried out using the ReCiPe midpoint method. The best scenario in terms of global warming potential (GWP) was the use of biochar in horticulture with net emissions of 2 g CO2 eq./kg sewage sludge. This scenario of biochar utilization can achieve savings of 78% of CO2 eq. emissions compared to the benchmark process of sewage sludge mono-incineration. In addition, no ecological hotspots in critical categories such as eutrophication or ecotoxicity were identified for the material use of biochar compared to the benchmark. Pyrolysis of digested sewage sludge with appropriate biochar utilization can therefore be an environmentally friendly option for both sequestering carbon and closing the nutrient cycle.

Integrating Life Cycle Assessment and Economic Evaluation

1998 ◽  
pp. 127-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Powell ◽  
Amelia Craighill ◽  
David Pearce
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Economic Evaluation

scholarly journals Review and expert survey of allocation methods used in life cycle assessment of milk and beef

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venla Kyttä ◽  
Marja Roitto ◽  
Aleksi Astaptsev ◽  
Merja Saarinen ◽  
Hanna L. Tuomisto
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Economic Allocation ◽  
Allocation Method ◽  
Lca Practitioners ◽  
By Products ◽  
Allocation Methods

Abstract Purpose Beef and dairy production systems produce several by-products, such as fertilizers, bioenergy, hides, and pet foods, among which the environmental impacts arising from production should be allocated. The choice of allocation method therefore inevitably affects the results of life cycle assessment (LCA) for milk and beef. The aims of this study were to map out the different allocation methods used in dairy and beef LCA studies and to clarify the rationale for selecting a certain method. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify the different allocation methods used in LCA studies of milk and beef production and the products using beef by-products as a raw material. The justifications for the use of different methods in the studies were also collected. To map out the perspectives of LCA practitioners and further clarify the reasoning behind the use of certain allocation methods, a mixed method survey with quantitative questions and qualitative explanatory fields was sent to the authors included in the literature review. Results and discussion The literature review showed that the most commonly used allocation method between milk and meat was biophysical allocation, which is also the recommended method in LCA guidelines of milk production. Economic allocation was the second most common method, although the rationale for using economic allocation was weak. By-products, such as inedible body parts, were not considered in milk studies and were taken into account in only a small number of beef studies. This might be because most of the studies have cradle-to-farm gate system boundaries. According to the survey, a significantly higher share of LCA practitioners would allocate impacts also to these by-products. Conclusions The allocation is usually done between milk and meat, and other by-products are not taken into account. Since these materials are an unavoidable part of production and there are numerous uses for them, these outputs should be recognized as products and also taken into consideration in LCA studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document