Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of LCA indicators to assess Iranian sugar production systems: case study — Hamadan Province

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this research, the environmental profile of sugar produced from beet was estimated by considering the beet cultivation and the milling process in the Iranian Hamadan Province via the life cycle assessment methodology. Data were obtained from sugar beet growers and the main sugar mill in the province. The system boundaries were set from the sugar beet planting to the production of white sugar in the sugar mill. The functional unit was considered to be 1 ton of white sugar. The calculations were performed for impact categories including global warming, abiotic depletion, fossil fuel depletion, ozone layer depletion, human toxicity, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation, acidification, and eutrophication. Results indicate that the global warming impact of sugar production through beet cultivation and the milling process was estimated to be 310, and 1540 kgCO2eq/ton, respectively. Electricity accounted for the greatest share of the impact for agricultural phase (55.29%), followed by chemical fertilisers (20.83%). This electricity consumption in sugar beet production is mainly due to the agricultural irrigation. Therefore, the enhancement of water use efficiency and water extraction in sugar beet farming seems to be a possible solution to the reduction of the overall environmental burden. Also, sugar beet production should become more efficient in terms of fertiliser use. In the industrial phase, the most significant impacts are related to the production and use of natural gas. Renovation of equipment and development of renewable energies in the mill have been suggested for making beet processing more energy efficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

ADP:

Abiotic depletion potential

AFDP:

Abiotic depletion potential (fossil fuels)

GWP:

Global warming potential

ODP:

Ozone depletion potential

HTP:

Human toxicity potential

FAWP:

Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential

MAEP:

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential

TEP:

Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential

POP:

Photochemical oxidation potential

AP:

Acidification potential

EP:

Eutrophication potential

FU:

Functional unit

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LCI:

Life cycle inventory

LCIA:

Life cycle impact assessment

SD:

Standard deviation

VSD:

Variable speed drives

tkm:

Ton kilometre

References

  1. Hossain MS, Arshad M, Qian L, Kächele H, Khan I, Islam MDI, Mahboob MG (2020) Climate change impacts on farmland value in Bangladesh. Ecol Ind 112:106–181

    Google Scholar 

  2. Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Monforti F (2017) Energy flows and greenhouses gases of EU (European Union) national breads using an LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) approach. J Clean Prod 140:455–469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. FAO (2022) FAOSTAT Statistical Database. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available on-line: www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Accessed 20 Feb 2022

  4. MAJ (2022) Annual Agricultural Statistics. Retrieved from: www.maj.ir. Accessed 20 Feb 2022

  5. Cheesman OD (2004) Environmental impacts of sugar production: the cultivation and processing of sugarcane and sugar beet. CABI Publication, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Notarnicola B, Sala S, Anton A, McLaren SJ, Saouter E, Sonesson U (2017) The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J Clean Prod 140:399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bosco S, Di Bene C, Galli M, Remorini D, Massai R, Bonari E (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Ital J Agron 6(e15):93–100

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2004) Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. Eur J Agron 20(3):247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gholamrezaee H, Kheiralipour K, Rafiee S (2021) Investigation of energy and environmental indicators in sugar production from sugar beet. J Environ Sci Stud 6(2):3540–3548

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marashi F, JafarzadehHaghighifard N, Khorasani N, Monavari SM (2019) Life cycle assessment of the sugar industry: a case study of Amir Kabir sugar cane industry. Iran J Biosyst Eng 49(4):597–608

    Google Scholar 

  11. Renouf M, Wegener M, Nielsen L (2008) An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenerg 32(12):1144–1155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Meza-Palacios R, Aguilar-Lasserre AA, Morales-Mendoza LF, Pérez-Gallardo JR, Rico-Contreras JO, Avarado-Lassman A (2019) Life cycle assessment of cane sugar production: the environmental contribution to human health, climate change, ecosystem quality and resources in México. J Environ Sci Health, Part A 54(7):668–678

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramjeawon T (2004) Life cycle assessment of cane-sugar on the island of Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(4):254–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mashoko L, Mbohwa C, Thomas VM (2010) LCA of the South African sugar industry. J Environ Planning Manage 53(6):793–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yadav SK, Mishra GC (2013) Environmental life cycle assessment framework for Sukker production (raw sugar production). Int J Environ Eng Manag 4(5):499–506

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shukla A, Kumar DSY (2017) A Review on Exergy, Life cycle and thermo economic analysis of sugar industry, International Journal of Mechanical. Eng Technol 8(10):108–119

    Google Scholar 

  17. Seabra JE, Macedo IC, Chum HL, Faroni CE, Sarto CA (2011) Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 5(5):519–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hiloidhari M, Banerjee R, Rao AB (2021) Life cycle assessment of sugar and electricity production under different sugarcane cultivation and cogeneration scenarios in India. J Clean Prod 290:125170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Pagan RJ (2010) Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(9):927–937

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghani HU, Gheewala SH (2018) Comparative life cycle assessment of byproducts from sugarcane industry in Pakistan based on biorefinery concept. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 8(4):979–990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaab A, Sharifi M, Mobli H, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Chau K-W (2019) Combined life cycle assessment and artificial intelligence for prediction of output energy and environmental impacts of sugarcane production. Sci Total Environ 664:1005–1019

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2001) Application of the life cycle assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet production with different forms of nitrogen fertilisers. Eur J Agron 14(3):221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bazrgar AB, Soltani A, Koocheki A, Zeinali E, Ghaemi A (2011) Environmental emissions profile of different sugar beet cropping systems in East of Iran. Afr J Agric Res 6(29):6246–6255

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tahmasebi E, Bozorgi M, Khukhan K (2013) Sugar beet ecological emissions profile in East of Iran. Front Agric Food Technol 1(4):34–43

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bennett R, Phipps R, Strange A, Grey P (2004) Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnol J 2(4):273–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Soheili-Fard F, Kouchaki-Penchah H (2015) Assessing environmental burdens of sugar beet production in East Azerbaijan province of IR Iran based on farms size levels. Int J Farm Allied Sci 4(5):489–495

    Google Scholar 

  27. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. International Organization for Standardisation, Geneva

  28. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardisation, Geneva

  29. Khoram MR, Safikhani M, Khezri SM (2013) Review of Hosein Aabad Sugar Factory (HASF) wastewater and assessment of its pollution load. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 17(3):395–400

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Jafari A, Mohammadi A (2011) The functional relationship between energy inputs and yield value of soybean production in Iran. Int J Green Energy 8(3):398–410

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Available on-line: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  32. Sutter J (2010) Final Report: Life Cycle Inventories of Pesticides. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. Gallen, Switzerland

  33. Nemecek T, Kägi T, Blaser S (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent V. 2.0 No 15a. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Retrieved from: www.ecoinvent.ch. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  34. Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Sharifi M, Hosseinpour S, Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA (2017) Application of multi-objective genetic algorithms for optimization of energy, economics and environmental life cycle assessment in oilseed production. J Clean Prod 140:804–815

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2000) Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. Int J Cycle Assess 5(6):349–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Yuttitham M, Gheewala SH, Chidthaisong A (2011) Carbon footprint of sugar produced from sugarcane in eastern Thailand. J Clean Prod 19(17–18):2119–2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Spoerri A, Kägi T (2016) Case study European sugar: important insights for environmental footprinting. In proceedings of 10th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment of Food, Dublin, Ireland. 19–21 October 2016

  38. Soltanpanahi S, Prakash Kammardi T, Ghaderzadeh H (2013) Analysis of input-output energy use in sugar beet production in Iran. World Appl Sci J 28(9):1252–1261

    Google Scholar 

  39. Erdal G, Esengün K, Erdal H, Gündüz O (2007) Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32(1):35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Soltani A, Rajabi M, Zeinali E, Soltani E (2011) Evaluation of environmental impact of crop production using LCA: wheat in Gorgan. J Crop Prod 3(3):201–218

    Google Scholar 

  41. Moore PH (2017) Sugarcane and Sugarbeet. In: Thomas B, Murray BG, Murphy DJ (eds) Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences (Second Edition). Academic Press, Oxford, pp 273–280

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Duraisam R, Salelgn K, Berekete AK (2017) Production of beet sugar and bio-ethanol from sugar beet and it bagasse: a review. Int J Eng Trends Technol 43(4):222–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rahimian B (2015) Application of computational intelligence techniques for determination of economic, energy and environmental indices of wheat, sugar beet and peas production in West of Azerbaijan Province. Dissertation, University of Tehran

  44. Khoshnevisan B, Rajaeifar MA, Clark S, Shamahirband S, Anuar NB, Shuib NLM, Gani A (2014) Evaluation of traditional and consolidated rice farms in Guilan Province, Iran, using life cycle assessment and fuzzy modeling. Sci Total Environ 481:242–251

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yousefi M, Khoramivafa M, Mondani F (2014) Integrated evaluation of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) agroecosystems in Iran. Atmos Environ 92:501–505

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Amid S, Shoja H (2014) Energy use and greenhouse gas emission analysis for sugar beet production under three cultivated area levels. Trend Life Sci 3(2):10–22

    Google Scholar 

  47. Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W (2008) N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys 8:389–395

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hillier J, Hawes C, Squire G, Hilton A, Wale S, Smith P (2009) The carbon footprints of food crop production. Int J Agric Sustain 7(2):107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Draycott AP, Christenson DR (2003) Nutrients for sugar beet production: soil-plant relationships. CABI Publication, Wallingford

  50. Solomon SK (2005) Environmental pollution and its management in sugar industry in India: an appraisal. Sugar tech 7(1):77–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vaccari G, Tamburini E, Sgualdino G, Urbaniec K, Klemeš J (2005) Overview of the environmental problems in beet sugar processing: possible solutions. J Clean Prod 13(5):499–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, 45371-38791, Iran

    Majid Namdari

  2. Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

    Shahin Rafiee & Soleiman Hosseinpour

  3. Ionian Department of Law, Economics and Environment, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy

    Bruno Notarnicola, Giuseppe Tassielli & Pietro A. Renzulli

Authors
  1. Majid Namdari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shahin Rafiee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Notarnicola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppe Tassielli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pietro A. Renzulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Soleiman Hosseinpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Majid Namdari: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, and writing—original draft preparation; Shahin Rafiee: investigation, conceptualisation and supervision; Bruno Notarnicola: formal analysis and supervision; Giuseppe Tassielli: formal analysis, resources and conceptualisation; Pietro A. Renzulli: formal analysis; and reviewing and editing; Soleiman Hosseinpour: formal analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majid Namdari.

Ethics declarations

Institutional Review Board statement

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Namdari, M., Rafiee, S., Notarnicola, B. et al. Use of LCA indicators to assess Iranian sugar production systems: case study — Hamadan Province. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 14, 6759–6772 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02982-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02982-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation