Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aquaculture effluents through intensification and recirculation

Aquaculture ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 226 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 35-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raul H. Piedrahita
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 7386
Author(s):  
Thomas Schaubroeck ◽  
Simon Schaubroeck ◽  
Reinout Heijungs ◽  
Alessandra Zamagni ◽  
Miguel Brandão ◽  
...  

To assess the potential environmental impact of human/industrial systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very common method. There are two prominent types of LCA, namely attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA). A lot of literature covers these approaches, but a general consensus on what they represent and an overview of all their differences seems lacking, nor has every prominent feature been fully explored. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to argue for and select definitions for each concept and (2) specify all conceptual characteristics (including translation into modelling restrictions), re-evaluating and going beyond findings in the state of the art. For the first objective, mainly because the validity of interpretation of a term is also a matter of consensus, we argue the selection of definitions present in the 2011 UNEP-SETAC report. ALCA attributes a share of the potential environmental impact of the world to a product life cycle, while CLCA assesses the environmental consequences of a decision (e.g., increase of product demand). Regarding the second objective, the product system in ALCA constitutes all processes that are linked by physical, energy flows or services. Because of the requirement of additivity for ALCA, a double-counting check needs to be executed, modelling is restricted (e.g., guaranteed through linearity) and partitioning of multifunctional processes is systematically needed (for evaluation per single product). The latter matters also hold in a similar manner for the impact assessment, which is commonly overlooked. CLCA, is completely consequential and there is no limitation regarding what a modelling framework should entail, with the coverage of co-products through substitution being just one approach and not the only one (e.g., additional consumption is possible). Both ALCA and CLCA can be considered over any time span (past, present & future) and either using a reference environment or different scenarios. Furthermore, both ALCA and CLCA could be specific for average or marginal (small) products or decisions, and further datasets. These findings also hold for life cycle sustainability assessment.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shahzad Nazir ◽  
Yeqin Wang ◽  
Bilal Muhammad ◽  
Ahmad N. Abdalla

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 8242
Author(s):  
Jazmín Maciel Martínez ◽  
Eduardo Baltierra-Trejo ◽  
Paul Taboada-González ◽  
Quetzalli Aguilar-Virgen ◽  
Liliana Marquez-Benavides

Agave distillates, such as tequila and mezcal, are alcoholic spirits representative of Mexican culture. In recent years, the demand for mezcal has increased, and with it the requirement for raw materials, bringing with it a series of difficulties. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential environmental impact and energy demand of the production of young craft mezcal from an endemic agave (Agave cupreata) found in the central and southern Pacific area of Mexico. The potential environmental impact of the mezcal studied was obtained through the life cycle analysis methodology using a midpoint approach by the ReCiPe method to calculate the potential environmental impact with SimaPro software (version 8.2.3.0., PRé Sustainability, Amersfoort, The Netherlands). The functional unit is a young craft mezcal bottle of 750 mL with 46% Vol. Alc. The stage of highest contribution to the environmental impact of mezcal was the manufacturing/processing, contributing 59.6% of them. The energy demand of the craft mezcal resulted in 163.8 MJ/bottle of 7.5 dl. The kg CO2eq in mezcal (1.7) is higher than beer (0.63) or white wine (1.01), but lower than whisky (2.25) or pisco (3.62). These findings could allow the search for alternatives for the development of sustainable production.


Wear ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 267 (5-8) ◽  
pp. 807-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Kukutschová ◽  
V. Roubíček ◽  
K. Malachová ◽  
Z. Pavlíčková ◽  
R. Holuša ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document