Next Article in Journal
Modeling the Effect of Green Roofs for Building Energy Savings and Air Pollution Reduction in Shanghai
Previous Article in Journal
Calculation Method of Material Accumulation Rate at the Front of Trunk Glaciers Based on Satellite Monitoring
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biodiesel Production from Waste Cooking Oil Using Extracted Catalyst from Plantain Banana Stem via RSM and ANN Optimization for Sustainable Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/su16010285
sustainability-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

Life Cycle Assessment of the Sugarcane Supply Chain in the Brazilian Midwest Region

by
Thamine G. Rodrigues
and
Ricardo L. Machado
*
Production and Systems Engineering Postgraduate Program, Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás, Av. Universitaria 1440, Goiania 74605-010, GO, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 285; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010285
Submission received: 26 October 2023 / Revised: 18 December 2023 / Accepted: 22 December 2023 / Published: 28 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability with Biofuel Production: Opportunities and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The sugarcane supply chain is one of the main contributors to economic development in many countries. However, it is necessary to consider the relationship of this supply chain with the environment in order to reduce/mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) supports improving the relationship between production systems and the environment, increasing process efficiency, and reducing costs. The main objective of this research was to identify the extent to which the sugarcane supply chain impacts environmental and human health aspects as well as the use of resources through LCA. This analysis focused on a supply chain in Brazil’s Midwest region, considering the stages of cultivation, transportation, and production. The results indicated that using fertilizers and pesticides and burning crops during harvest severely threaten the sustainability of this supply chain. Also, using crude oil, natural gas, coal, and other chemical products in ethanol production is a critical threat to the sustainability of the sugarcane supply chain. The obtained results cooperate with the decarbonization goals assumed by Brazil at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP 21). A multidimensional approach is necessary to assess the sugarcane production chain results, and the LCA method is appropriate for performing this analysis.

1. Introduction

Even though the high consumption of fossil fuels has led to rapid economic growth in various segments of the economy, this energy source threatens the environment due to increased emissions of CO2 and other polluting agents to the atmosphere [1].
Increased energy demand and growing awareness of climate change hazards from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by fossil fuels have raised interest in biomass energy production, resulting in significant growth in biofuel production [2].
According to Gilani, Sahebi, and Oliveira [1], policymakers and companies will support renewable energy sources (bioenergy and biofuels) and cleaner technologies as the pressure for cleaner and more sustainable energy generation increases. In this scenario, the authors highlight biomass as a sustainable energy source due to its wide range of primary resources and low production costs.
Sugarcane is one of the primary sources of renewable energy production. Due to the advantages of using biomass in generating renewable energy, many researchers have studied its applications [3,4,5,6]. According to Gilani, Sahebi, and Oliveira [1], bioethanol is the most developed renewable fuel. The authors assert that bioethanol from sugarcane presents high potential as a growing alternative to the consumption of fossil fuels. In addition, sugarcane bioethanol can contribute to reducing GHG emissions. However, despite its benefits, Bordonal et al. [7] state that Brazil’s sugarcane production increase in recent decades has been associated with negative impacts on sustainability, especially concerning the environmental impacts of agricultural inputs and production processes of its supply chain.
As a result, the search for strategies to improve the sustainability of the sugarcane supply chain has become of utmost importance. According to García et al. [5] and Fang, Heijungs, and Snoo [8], one way to achieve this objective is by reducing GHG emissions. Many researchers highlight the life cycle assessment (LCA) method as a strategy for estimating the environmental impacts of a production process. De Figueiredo et al. [9] evaluated the carbon footprint of sugar production. Khatiwada and Silveira [10] analyzed emissions from ethanol production and electricity cogeneration. Renouf, Pagan, and Wegener [11] compared the environmental impacts of producing different sugarcane products. Other studies have addressed the sugarcane supply chain by exploring the LCA method in different contexts [3,4,6,12,13,14]. Despite researchers’ efforts, few studies have analyzed the environmental and human health impacts of the sugarcane supply chain.
Several studies have adopted sugarcane as an object of study, whether in a context in which they seek optimization [1,2,12,13,14] or perform an efficiency analysis [15,16,17]. Despite these applications, Singh, Srivastava, and Jangirala [18] state that researchers need to focus on the social and environmental issues related to the sugarcane supply chain. The current work contributes to the state of the art by developing a model based on LCA of the sugarcane production chain in Brazil. This model differs from other research by including specific data from a production chain adopted for the study and the generic data presented in the OpenLCA Desktop version 1.11.0 software database.
In this context, the main objective of this study was to identify to what extent the sugarcane supply chain impacts environmental and human health aspects as well as the use of resources through a life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis. The analyzed supply chain addresses the stages of the sugarcane cultivation process (from land preparation until harvest), sugarcane transport from the farm to the mill, ethanol production, and transport from the mill to the distribution center.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Brazilian Sugar and Ethanol Industry

Agriculture is an important economic activity in many countries [19]. According to the Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Confederation (CNA) [20], in 2020, agribusiness output reached 27% of the Brazilian GDP. Among the segments of Brazilian agribusiness, the largest share belongs to the agricultural branch (70% of the sector).
Santoro, Soler, and Cherri [21] argue that sugarcane cultivation is essential for many countries’ economies, especially Brazil. Machado and Da Cruz [22] present a list of the significant sugarcane producer countries and show that Brazil is the largest sugarcane producer in the world. According to the Brazilian National Supply Company (CONAB) [23], the sugarcane industry has been relevant to Brazil since the colonial period. Carlucci et al. [17] argue that sugarcane is responsible for a large portion of the Brazilian economy, generating income through the production of biofuels, sugar, ethanol, and distilled beverages. Furthermore, Carlucci et al. [17] assert that Brazil has the largest area of sugarcane cultivation globally, being the second-largest producer of ethanol and one of the world’s largest consumers of this renewable energy. Gonçalves et al. [24] claim that there are more than 350 sugarcane mills in Brazil, generating jobs for the population and valuable products for society.
Brazil is renowned as a prominent technological and productive sugarcane biofuel producer, contributing to the emerging low-carbon economy and fostering global demand for alternative and renewable energy sources [15,16,25]. According to ÚNICA [26], Brazilian sugarcane ethanol represents 13.8% of the world’s renewable energy matrix. Moreover, sugarcane ethanol is the biofuel with the lowest carbon footprint and with high energy efficiency [26]. According to Kota et al. [27], sugarcane is a potential source of renewable, low-cost energy that can be used as an alternative to conventional fuel and to reduce environmental pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.

2.2. Sugarcane Supply Chain Sustainability

According to Murphy and McCarthy [28], renewable sources are essential because they generate lower CO2 emissions than traditional fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Jonker et al. [2] mention that the increase in energy demand and the growing awareness of climate change due to GHG emissions related to fossil fuels have increased the interest in using biomass to generate clean energy. Nie et al. [29] highlight that compared to other bioenergy sources, energy crops are suitable for large-scale commercial applications. According to Khatiwada et al. [12] and Rentizelas et al. [30], the existing biomass stock is sufficient to meet Brazil’s demand for renewable energy sources.
Cavalcanti, Carvalho, and Da Silva [31] argue that renewable resources, such as biomass or waste, represent one of the strategies to reduce environmental impacts associated with energy generation. The use of sugarcane as bioenergy has been addressed by several researchers [1,2,29,32,33,34,35].
According to Lamers et al. [36], the global production of biofuel is dominated by ethanol, mainly in the United States of America (USA) and Brazil. Mozaffari, Ostovan, and Wanke [37] state that a sustainable supply chain is created by the feedback between sustainability dimensions, mainly related to environmental, economic, and social spheres. Mota et al. [38], Neutzling et al. [39], and Chavez et al. [40] highlight that achieving sustainability within the supply chain is still one of the challenges to be overcome.

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the Sugarcane Supply Chain

According to Chavez et al. [40], Higgins [41], and Kadwa and Bezuidenhout [42], the sugarcane supply chain is composed of several activities, including cultivation, harvesting, transport, industrial processing, and distribution. Chavez et al. [40] state that a supply chain comprises a network of organizations, ranging from the initial provider (raw material producer) to the final consumer. Walters and Lancaster [43] argue that the main objective of supply chains is to add value to stakeholders, whether they are entrepreneurs or field workers. In this context, a prominent approach used to analyze the sustainability aspects of a supply chain is the LCA method.
LCA is a proper, standardized method, based on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, to estimate the environmental impact of processes and products [5]. García et al. [5] and Khatiwada and Silveira [10] argue that the LCA method can measure a product’s total environmental performance from the cradle to the grave.
LCA evaluates the potential environmental impact of products and services in a supply chain, gathering inputs and outputs of a product system and employing an impact assessment step [15]. García et al. [5] point out that this method has been widely used to identify products with lower environmental impacts or locate the production stages where the most significant environmental impacts occur in a supply chain.
Several studies have used LCA to identify the environmental impacts of different supply chains, such as bioelectricity [44,45,46,47,48]; sugar production [5,49]; ethanol production [4,10,50,51]; sugarcane products [6,11,52]; the agri-food chain [53,54]; and other products [13].
The sugarcane supply chain is constantly examined at strategic, tactical, and operational levels to obtain methods to improve its production. However, despite the economic importance of sugarcane and the different practices related to the growth and development of this market, numerous aspects must be considered throughout the supply chain to achieve sustainable development [1].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Approach

The study object was a sugarcane supply chain located at the micro-region of Anápolis in the State of Goiás, in the Midwest region of Brazil. Figure 1 shows the map of the State of Goiás, with the micro-region of Anápolis, Brazil, highlighted in red.
This study was limited to the analysis of the supply chain of the sugar and ethanol industry located in the micro-region of Anápolis in the State of Goiás. Despite this delimitation, this study can be adapted to other sugarcane chains, as the database used is representative of the sugarcane and ethanol chain in Brazil. Furthermore, based on the profile of the study object, the Anápolis company was chosen due to the opportunity to access the data necessary for the research.
This study did not address the production of second-generation ethanol (2GE), sugar production, or cogeneration of electricity since the industry adopted as the object of study produces hydrous ethanol only. Also, the research considered in the analysis involved only the sugarcane supply chain’s agricultural, industrial, and transport stages.
In the agricultural stage, we investigated soil preparation, sugarcane plantations, and harvesting. The sugarcane harvest was primarily mechanical (with no burning process) and was transported to the industrial stage, where the sugarcane was processed and ethanol was produced. Finally, the produced ethanol was transported to the last stage of the supply chain, where the product was sold. The OpenLCA® software, Desktop version 1.11.0 (openLCA_win64_1.11.0_2022-02-09.exe), was used for the analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the elaborated product system, considering only the technical flows.
As Figure 2 displays, the system boundaries represent sugarcane cultivation, transport, ethanol production, and transport. The analyzed flows (inputs and outputs) were determined following the existing literature, such as Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3]; Tsiropoulos et al. [4]; García et al. [5]; Prasara-A et al. [6]; and Rebolledo-Leiva et al. [55].

3.2. Impact Assessment

Impacts on the categories of damage to human health, the ecosystem, and resources were analyzed using the Environmental Footprint (EF) (mid-point indicator) method. The economic allocation method was used, and normalization and weighting were performed using the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) standard weighting and normalization factors included in the impact assessment method.
The European Commission (EC) has proposed the PEF and EF methods as the standard strategy for measuring the environmental performance of products and organizations. The PEF and EF methods aim to reduce the environmental impacts of goods, services, and organizations, considering supply chain activities (from extraction of raw materials through production and use to final waste management). This objective is achieved by providing detailed requirements for modeling the environmental impacts of material/energy flows and waste streams associated with a product or an organization throughout the life cycle [55].
The economic allocation method is one of the LCA cost allocation methods. It allocates indirect and typical costs to products or services based on their relative economic value [54]. Normalization and weighting are LCA steps that compare life cycle analysis results between different environmental impact categories. Normalization generates a single numerical score, weighted for each impact category. Environmental impact scores in LCA are displayed in physical units representing potential environmental influence [56].

3.3. Data Collecting

The data used to build the model were categorized into economic or technical flows, elementary flows (of environmental intervention), and waste. Data for the technical flows were obtained from the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) [57], CNA [20], Nova Cana [58], and the studied sugarcane mill. In addition, data available from the OpenLCA nexus database on sugarcane and ethanol production processes in Brazil were also used as were data from articles evaluated in this research. The data obtained from the OpenLCA nexus were used as elementary flows in the elaborated model.
The LCA model comprises 4282 variables, namely, 628 input variables (20 technical and 608 elementary) and 3654 output variables (5 technical, 3607 elementary, and 42 waste). Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 present the data referring to the technical flows used in the LCA model.
Table 1 presents the input and output data for the LCA model.
Table 1 shows that, in sugarcane cultivation, the sources of impacts related to technical flows included using soil correction, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, nematicides, and water to improve crop performance in addition to the sugarcane seedlings and the required labor. For the reference flow, the cultivation area covered was 4760.50 hectares. Regarding elementary flows, data were obtained from the Agri-footprint 3.0 database and the European Life Cycle Database (ELCD), contained in the OpenLCA nexus. According to Agri-footprint [59], food industries, LCA researchers, the scientific community, and government institutions have widely used these databases. Furthermore, many processes are modeled according to the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) guidance. The database used to complement the sugarcane cultivation stage was developed using the ReCiPe Midpoint H method (version 1.07) [60]. The cultivation process was based on the Agri-footprint methodology [59] and included crop yield in agricultural cultivation based on FAOSTAT [61] for 5-year average data (2010–2014). Elementary flows included field emissions to air and water, direct changes in land use, water use, and pesticide and fertilizer use emissions. Crop yields were derived mainly from FAOSTAT [61] statistics from 2010 to 2014. Fertilizer application rates (in terms of N, P, and K requirements) were derived from Brentrup and Pallière [62], Rosas [63], and FAOSTAT [61]. Specific fertilizer amounts were calculated based on crop-specific nutrient requirements and country-specific fertilizer mix, derived from International Fertilizer Association (IFA) statistics [64]. According to the Agri-footprint methodology [59], heavy metal emissions due to the application of manure and artificial fertilizers were calculated based on a methodology adapted from Nemecek and Schnetzer [65], where the balance of heavy metals depending on fertilizer use and crop uptake was determined using literature on heavy metal content in manure [66] and in fertilizers [67]. The use of water was based on the study by Mekonnen and Hoekstra [68].
Table 2 presents the technical flows from the sugarcane transportation stage to the processing plant.
Concerning sugarcane transport, the truck was considered a heavy or light vehicle for road transport. As a reference flow, the transport dataset referred to 4560 tons of sugarcane multiplied by the traveled distance in km. At this stage, ammonia (NH3), benzene (C6H6), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), nitrogen monoxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), oxide nitrous (N2O), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were the emissions resulting from combustion.
Table 3 presents the data used in the ethanol manufacturing process, specific to the technical flows of the model.
The industrial phase begins with washing the sugarcane. Subsequently, the sugarcane goes through the milling process, where the sugarcane juice is extracted and the residual sugarcane bagasse is obtained. The extracted juice is used to produce ethanol. Concerning the elementary flows, water use is modeled considering the release and evaporation of water in the process. GHG-related emissions involve a 20-year basis with values from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). GHG emission compensation is not considered in the assessment.
Table 4 presents data relating to the transportation of the ethanol produced.
The same flows presented for sugarcane transport were considered for ethanol distribution. However, changes were made based on the reference flows of this process. At this stage, a load of 424,080 L of ethanol was transported over 74 km. In contrast, 4560 tons were transported over an average distance of 26 km in the transport of sugarcane.

4. Results Presentation and Analysis

4.1. Life Cycle Inventory—Technical Flows

Figure 3 illustrates the contributions of water, fuel, labor, sugarcane seedlings, vehicles, and pesticides used in sugarcane cultivation (correctives, fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and nematicides).
Figure 3 shows that more water was used during sugarcane cultivation than during the ethanol production process. This contribution is due to the high demand for water for sugarcane irrigation during its cultivation. According to Resende et al. [69] and Carr and Knox [70], sugarcane water demand varies from 1100 mm to 1800 mm per year.
With regards to fuel, the contribution was noticeably higher for sugarcane transportation. This contribution occurs because the company’s trucks have an average transport capacity of 49.5 tons of sugarcane. Therefore, to transport an average of 4560 tons of sugarcane, 92 trips per day are necessary. Similarly, sugarcane transport had a higher contribution to vehicles due to truck capacity and the amount of sugarcane to be loaded.
Regarding labor, the ethanol production process used the highest amount, requiring 22.82 operators per ton of processed sugarcane, according to Shavazipour, Stray, and Stewart [12]. Another process to be highlighted was sugarcane transportation. Although the use of labor was significantly lower, with 0.02 operators per ton of sugarcane transported [13], the high use of vehicles in this process increased the contribution of the labor variable.
Among the pesticides used in sugarcane cultivation, herbicides were the most used (2.608 × 103 kg). According to data from Nova Cana [58], weeds are mainly responsible for sugarcane crop losses. Therefore, a high volume of herbicides is used to circumvent this problem. According to EMBRAPA [57], using correctives (the second more significant contribution with 1.500 × 103 kg) to correct soil acidity and fertilizers impact sugarcane productivity. Still, according to EMBRAPA [57], corrective practices include using lime to correct acidity, gypsum to reduce the activity of aluminum, and calcium and phosphate to increase the level of phosphorus in the soil. The use of fertilizers (3.913 × 102 kg) was relatively low compared with other pesticides. According to Nova Cana [60], a lower level of fertilizer is used to grow sugarcane in Brazil compared to other countries. Finally, insecticides (7.043 kg) made the smallest contribution to sugarcane cultivation. The use of insecticides is relatively low but used for this crop to control leafhoppers.
There was a contribution of 182,600 kg of sugarcane seedlings used in the cultivation stage. According to EMBRAPA [57], the sugarcane seedlings required vary between 10 and 15 tons per cultivated hectare. Despite the relatively high quantity of seedlings, the renewal of the fields takes about five years [57].

4.2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—Elementary Flows

In order to analyze the contribution of environmental impacts by category and compare the performance of the processes analyzed, a project report was generated. The processes were compared using the LCIA Environmental Footprint method (mid-point indicator) and considering all the impact categories of this method. The normalization and weighting model defined for the project was the PEF standard weighting and normalization factors provided by the impact assessment method. The production variants assumed the daily ethanol production values. Thus, for every 424,080 L of ethanol, harvesting and transporting 4560 tons of sugarcane was necessary.
Table 5 shows the LCIA results. Each selected indicator is shown in the rows, while the project variables are presented in the columns. The unit of measurement is the unit of the LCIA category as defined for the LCA method.
The impact contributions presented in Table 5 can be visualized in Figure 4. The graph shows the relative results of the indicators for the respective project variants. For each indicator, the maximum result is set to 100%, and the results of the other variants are displayed concerning this result.
The impact categories with the most significant contribution were eco-toxicity (freshwater), with a 70% impact contribution; marine eutrophication, land use, and climate change through land use, with a 100% contribution; and water use, with a 50% impact contribution.
Regarding the sugarcane supply chain processes, ethanol production had the highest impact contribution, except for marine eutrophication, land use, and climate change—land use and land use change, with 38%, 12%, and 0.04% of the contribution, respectively.
Regarding transport, it was observed that both sugarcane and ethanol possessed similar results. The highest contribution was for land eutrophication, with a 30% impact contribution, followed by human toxicity (non-carcinogenic) with 16%, acidification with 12%, climate change factors and marine eutrophication, with 11%, photochemical ozone formation with 7%, human toxicity (carcinogenic) with 5%, and eco-toxicity (freshwater) with 3%.
In order to better analyze the impact assessment, the LCA analysis was categorized into three types: ecosystem damage, human health damage, and resource use. The results are presented in Section 4.2.1, Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.2.3.

4.2.1. Ecosystem Damage

The ecosystem damage analysis involved the impact categories contributing to climate change. The impacts were acidification (mol H+ eq), climate change (kg CO2 equivalent), eco-toxicity (freshwater) (CTUe), marine eutrophication (kg N eq), eutrophication (freshwater) (kg P eq), eutrophication (terrestrial) (mol N eq) and ozone depletion (kg CFC11 eq). Figure 5 presents the results.
Regarding ecosystem damage, only climate change and eco-toxicity (freshwater) present significant results. For the climate change category, the ethanol production process had the highest contribution to CO2 equivalent emissions (78.18%) compared to the other processes. Sugarcane cultivation happens due to the burning process in some fields. Even though most of the sugarcane harvest in the analyzed sugarcane mill had already become mechanized, some parts of the field were still burned before the harvest. In this sense, García [71] explains that during the burning of sugarcane (harvest) and agricultural waste, CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions occur. Nevertheless, García [71] emphasizes that the CO2 emissions are offset by CO2 capture during the subsequent sugarcane crop. The obtained results indicated an emission of 1.297 kg CO2 eq for ethanol production, 0.208 kg CO2 eq for sugarcane cultivation, and 0.077 kg CO2 eq for transportation processes.
Regarding environmental eco-toxicity, the results were measured considering the impact on freshwater. Ethanol production and sugarcane cultivation stood out for this impact category, contributing 56.68% (0.382 CTUe) and 39.46% (0.266 CTUe), respectively. On the other hand, transport contributions were significantly small, with about 1.93% (0.013 CTUe) of participation in the freshwater eco-toxicity criterion.

4.2.2. Human Health Damage

In the human health damage analysis, the impact categories studied were human carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity (CTUh), ionizing radiation (kBq U-235 eq), particulate matter (disease inc.) and photochemical ozone formation (kg NMVOC eq). Figure 6 shows the results for the damage related to human health categories.
As presented in Figure 6, sugarcane cultivation, sugarcane transportation, ethanol production, and ethanol transportation presented no risk to human health regarding human carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity and particulate matter.
According to Acero, Rodríguez, and Ciroth [72], the ionizing radiation category is related to the damage to human health and ecosystems that is directly linked to radionuclide emissions throughout a product’s life cycle. For this impact category, the ethanol production process had a significantly higher contribution than the others, with 87.84% (0.013 kBq U235). The other processes presented a relatively small contribution, 9.24% (1.368 × 10−3 kBq U235) for sugarcane cultivation and 1.46% (2.156 × 10−4 kBq U235) for sugarcane and ethanol transportation.
Photochemical ozone reacts with volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in heat and sunlight. According to the results for the impact contribution of the photochemical ozone formation category, the highest percentage of contribution was related to ethanol production with 86.20% (5.603 × 10−3 kg NMVOC eq), followed by sugarcane and ethanol transport with 6.35% (4.130 × 10−4 kg NMVOC eq) and finally, sugarcane cultivation with 1.05% (6.847 × 10−5 kg NMVOC eq). This impact category depends largely on the amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), ammonia, and NMVOCs (non-methane volatile organic compounds) [63].

4.2.3. Resource Consumption

Concerning resource use, the categories land use (PT), fossil fuel (MJ), mineral and metal use (kg Sb eq), and water use (m3) were analyzed. Figure 7 presents the results.
In the land use category, sugarcane cultivation stood out with an 82.18% (14.772 Pt) contribution due to the occupation and use of land for soil preparation, cultivation, and harvesting of sugarcane. The other processes had a relatively small contribution, 9.78% (1.759 Pt) for ethanol production and 4.02% (0.722 Pt) for transportation. Regarding fossil fuel resources, ethanol production was the most significant contributor, with 94.84% (43.085 MJ) of the other processes. Sugarcane and ethanol transport had a percentage of 2.29% (1.041 MJ). Finally, the cultivation of sugarcane presented 0.57% (0.261 MJ). The impacts of mineral and metal use were nearly zero in all categories. Finally, concerning water use, ethanol production had the highest impact contribution, with 99.38% (0.032 m3). This process was followed by sugarcane cultivation, with 49.68% (0.016 m3). Transport presented a low contribution percentage, namely, 0.49% (1.601 × 10−4 m3) for sugarcane transport and −49.69% (−0.016 m3) for ethanol transport.

5. Discussion

5.1. Sugarcane Cultivation

The results obtained in this study show that sugarcane cultivation had greater relevance in impact factors related to eco-toxicity (freshwater), marine eutrophication, land use, climate change by land use, and water use. These results aligned with those of Tsiropoulos et al. [4], which pointed out that sugarcane cultivation impacted categories such as land cover, terrestrial eco-toxicity, acidification, and eutrophication. According to the authors, these impacts were related to pesticide use in sugarcane production.
The presented results also aligned with those of Prasara-A et al. [6]. These authors argue that sugarcane cultivation significantly impacts freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and marine eco-toxicity due to the application of agrochemicals. According to the authors, the main factors influencing environmental and human health caused by sugarcane cultivation are the excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. The results indicate that carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and phosphorus are the main substances contributing to this category’s impact. Another practice that contributes to these impacts is the burning of sugarcane waste. Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3] state that harvesting is the most contributing process to global warming. For photochemical ozone formation, harvesting is also the activity with the highest contributions. This result is due to the burning of sugarcane performed during the harvest period. The emissions caused by using diesel fuel also contribute to photochemical ozone formation and global warming.
García et al. [5] also claim that sugarcane cultivation presents the most significant contribution to the carbon footprint (CF) compared to the sugarcane transportation and sugar production processes. According to the authors, sugarcane cultivation is responsible for 59% to 74% of the total CO2 of the supply chain. Also, in the sugarcane cultivation process, using fertilizers is the main contributor to GHG emissions, with 40% to 50% participation.
Despite García et al. [5], Gunawan et al. [73] conclude that the main contributor to GHG emissions is sugar production (industrial phase) rather than sugarcane cultivation and sugarcane transportation. The authors conclude that the use of fertilizers is the most significant contributor to environmental impacts, with a 73.48% contribution (0.29 tons of CO2/ton of sugar produced), followed using pesticides (22.5%) and mechanization (4%).

5.2. Transport

Regarding the transport stages, this study confirms the results presented by Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3], Tsiropoulos et al. [4], García et al. [5], Prasara-A et al. [6], and Gunawan et al. [64], who indicate that the sugarcane transportation stage is the one in which the sugarcane supply chain presents the lowest contribution to environmental impacts. García et al. [5], for example, state that this stage represents only 10% to 13% of the total GHG emissions of the sugarcane chain. This result is in line with the one obtained in this study, namely, that 11% of the GHG emissions of the sugarcane supply chain were caused by sugarcane transportation.
It is worth noting that few studies include ethanol transportation to the distribution center in their analysis. Except for the research of Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3], the other studies formerly mentioned did not include this stage process in their analysis.
Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3] state that the most significant impact categories in ethanol transportation are those that contribute to climate change and global warming (0.53 kg of CO2eq/10.000 km), photochemical ozone formation (0.0010 kg of C2H4eq/10.000 km), acidification (0.0073 kg of SO2eq/10.000 km), and human toxicity (165,003.38 m3/10.00 km for air and 1.11 m3/10.000 km for water). Similarly, this study presented terrestrial eutrophication, human toxicity, acidification, climate change factors and marine eutrophication, photochemical ozone formation, and eco-toxicity (freshwater) as the main impact categories for the transport process.

5.3. Ethanol Production

Like García et al. [5], Prasara-A et al. [6], and Gunawan et al. [73], this research indicated that ethanol production is the main contributor to GHG emissions. Results presented in this study revealed that the ethanol production factors leading to GHG emissions were use of fossil resources (94.84%), acidification (71.81%), climate change (78.18%), eco-toxicity of freshwater (56.68%), marine eutrophication (62.80%), terrestrial eutrophication (51.74%) and destruction of the ozone layer (98.53%).
However, different from what was observed in this study, Prasara-A et al. [6] indicated that sugarcane cultivation produces the main environmental impact for all sugarcane-based products studied (sugar, ethanol, and electricity). This effect can occur due to sugarcane burning during the harvest and its residues. Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3] confirm this argument and clarify that excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides may also contribute to the high environmental impact. García et al. [5] state that Brazil´s fertilizers are applied in smaller quantities. The difference between the studied region, its different characteristics, and dissimilarities in demand and cultivation strategies can also explain the difference between Prasara-A et al. [6] results and those presented by this research.

5.4. Final Considerations

The presented results indicate that the main contributors to the environmental and human health impacts of the sugarcane cultivation stage come from the excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides and the burning of the crop during harvest. In ethanol production, the main impact contributions come from the use of crude oil, natural gas, and coal (fossil resources), sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (acidification), carbon dioxide and methane (climate change), antimony, chromium, copper, zinc, arsenic and vanadium (freshwater eco-toxicity), phosphate (marine eutrophication), nitrogen oxides and ammonia (terrestrial eutrophication), nitrogen oxides, ethylene and non-methane volatile organic compounds (destruction of the ozone layer).
According to Ometto, Hauschild, and Roma [3], although ethanol is considered a renewable fuel, it uses many non-renewable resources throughout its life cycle. The input of renewable resources is also high, mainly due to water consumption in the industrial phase, due to the sugarcane washing process. Another point to be considered is the number of emissions into the atmosphere and the diversity of the substances emitted.
Prasara-A et al. [6] developed improved sugarcane cultivation and harvesting practices. Gunawan et al. [73] suggest optimized use of fertilizers and pesticides, the concentration of sugarcane mills in one place or region to reduce transport routes, and the implementation of energy cogeneration projects.
García et al. [5] suggest that sugarcane waste burning can be replaced by so-called “green harvesting”, a cultivation methodology in which the straw (total or partial) is left on the ground. According to the authors, this procedure would reduce GHG emissions. De Figueiredo and La Scala [74] confirm this information. García et al. [5] also state that this harvesting method prevents pollutant gases and particles from being released, improves nearby populations’ health conditions, decreases erosion, increases land fertility, reduces soil evaporation, and improves water use efficiency. Leal et al. [75] also state that mechanical harvesting (no burning process) reduces soil erosion.
Concerning the industrial phase, according to García et al. [5], it is essential to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and efficiently promote energy cogeneration. In addition, the authors affirm that seeking techniques to improve sugarcane productivity, make fertilizer use efficient, minimize sugarcane waste burning, and develop efficiency in the mill is necessary.
Regarding transportation, García et al. [5] suggest improving roads, promoting the use of trains to transport sugarcane, and modernizing trucks, loaders, and harvesters to reduce GHG emissions.

6. Conclusions

The results obtained in this research confirmed some of the latest conclusions presented by other studies. However, some differences were also presented. The region’s characteristics and the cultivation and production practices adopted can explain those differences. One example is the difference in the quantity of fertilizers and pesticides used. Burning a sugarcane field in the manual harvesting process, employed in some countries, also has implications in the performed analysis. Mechanized harvesting is the predominant strategy for the supply chain region under analysis, significantly reducing environmental emissions and damage to human health at this supply chain stage.
It was also observed that there were common points regarding the inputs that contributed the most to the impact categories analyzed compared to other studies. At the industrial stage, the main contributions came from the use of crude oil, natural gas, and coal; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; carbon dioxide and methane; antimony, chromium, copper, zinc, arsenic, and vanadium; and phosphate, ammonia, ethylene, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. Regarding sugarcane cultivation, it was noted that the main contributors were fertilizers and pesticides and the practice of burning the sugarcane field during harvest. Finally, concerning the transportation stage, sugarcane to the factory and ethanol to the distribution center had the lowest participation percentages in environmental impacts.
This research aimed to contribute to improving the sugarcane supply chain, pointing out the main contributors to environmental impacts and human health present in the sugarcane chain. Although this study was restricted to the region of Anápolis, Goiás, it is believed that the results can be extended to other Brazilian regions and other regions worldwide, depending on their specificities.
This study is expected to provide regional producers with an analysis contributing to decision-making regarding production practices that can reduce environmental, social, and operational impacts on the sugarcane supply chain.
For future studies on the sugarcane supply chain, it is suggested to include other production stages, such as sugar and energy cogeneration from sugarcane bagasse, in the life cycle assessment. Another possibility is to include other social aspects besides impacts on human health. Finally, it is suggested to include the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method, extending the study of an eco-efficiency approach to the sugarcane supply chain to improve its efficiency.

Author Contributions

T.G.R.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, and Writing-Review and Editing. R.L.M.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing—Review and Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, and Fund Acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by FAPEG (Research Support Foundation in Goiás) and CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) through CAPES Public Notice 18/2020—PDPG—Strategic Partnerships in the States, scholarship process n. 88887.616618/2021-00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge FAPEG and CAPES for the financial support for the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gilani, H.; Sahebi, H.; Oliveira, F. Sustainable sugarcane-to-bioethanol supply chain network design: A robust possibilistic programming model. Appl. Energy 2020, 278, 115653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jonker, J.G.G.; Junginger, H.M.; Verstegen, J.A.; Lin, T.; Rodríguez, L.F.; Ting, K.C.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Van Der Hilst, F. Supply chain optimization of sugarcane first generation and eucalyptus second generation ethanol production in Brazil. Appl. Energy 2016, 173, 494–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ometto, A.R.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Roma, W.N.L. Lifecycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tsiropoulos, I.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Seabra, J.E.A.; Lundquist, L.; Schenker, U.; Briois, J.F.; Patel, M.K. Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India in comparison to Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1049–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. García, C.A.; García-Treviño, E.S.; Aguilar-Rivera, N.; Armendáriz, C. Carbon footprint of sugar production in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112 Pt 4, 2632–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Prasara-A, J.; Gheewala, S.H.; Silalertruksa, T.; Pongpat, P.; Sawaengsak, W. Environmental and social life cycle assessment to enhance sustainability of sugarcane-based products in Thailand. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1447–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bordonal, R.O.; Carvalho, J.L.N.; Lal, R.; De Figueiredo, E.B.; De Oliveira, B.G.; Scala, N., Jr. Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fang, K.; Heijungs, R.; de Snoo, G.R. Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 508–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Figueiredo, E.B.; Panosso, A.R.; Romão, R.; La Scala, N., Jr. Research greenhouse gas emission associated with sugar production in southern Brazil. Carbon Balance Manag. 2010, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Khatiwada, D.; Silveira, S. Greenhouse gas Balances of Molasses Bases Ethanol in Nepal. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1471–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Renouf, M.A.; Pagan, R.J.; Wegener, M.K. Bio-production from Australian sugarcane: An environmental investigation of product diversification in an agro-industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khatiwada, D.; Leduc, S.; Silveira, S.; McCallum, I. Optimizing ethanol and bioelectricity production in sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shavazipour, B.; Stray, J.; Stewart, T.J. Sustainable planning in sugar-bioethanol supply chain under deep uncertainty: A case study of South African sugarcane industry. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020, 143, 107091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abdali, H.; Sahebi, H.; Pishvaee, M. The water-energy-food-land nexus at the sugarcane-to-bioenergy supply chain: A sustainable network design model. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2021, 145, 107199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lemos, S.V.; Salgado, A.P., Jr.; Duarte, A.; De Souza, M.A.A., Jr.; Antunes, F.A. Agroindustrial best practices that contribute to technical efficiency in Brazilian sugar and ethanol production mills. Energy 2019, 177, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duarte, A.; Salgado, A.P., Jr.; Lemos, S.V.; De Souza, M.A.A., Jr.; Antunes, F.A. Proposal of operating best practices that contribute to the technical efficiency in Brazilian sugar and ethanol mills. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carlucci, F.V.; Lemos, S.V.; Salgado, A.P., Jr.; Rebehy, P.C.P.W. Environmental, field and impurity factors to increase the agricultural performance of Brazilian and Australian sugarcane mills. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 2083–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Singh, S.; Srivastava, S.K.; Jangirala, S. System Dynamics Analysis of Sugarcane Supply Chain in Indian Sugar Industry. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Monteiro, L.A.; Sentelhas, P.C. Sugarcane yield gap: Can it be determined at national level with a simple agrometeorological model? Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. CNA—Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil (Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Confederation). PIB do Agronegócio. CNA e CEPEA. 13 September 2021. Available online: https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/publicacoes/pib-do-agronegocio-avanca-no-trimestre-e-acumula-alta-de-9-81-no-primeiro-semestre-de-2021 (accessed on 26 October 2022).
  21. Santoro, E.; Soler, E.M.; Cherri, A.C. Route optimization in mechanized sugarcane harvesting. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 141, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Machado, R.L.; Da Cruz, T.V. An Empirical Approach Analyzing the Socioeconomic Sustainability of the International Sugarcane Trade. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. CONAB—Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Brazilian National Supply Company). Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira: Cana-de-Açúcar. v.7—Safra 2019/20—N.3—Terceiro levantamento. Brasília. December 2020; pp. 1–62. Available online: https://www.conab.gov.br/ (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  24. Gonçalves, F.; Perna, R.; Lopes, E.; Maciel, R.; Tovar, L.; Lopes, M. Strategies to improve the environmental efficiency and the profitability of sugarcane mills. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 148, 106052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hussain, A.; Arif, S.M.; Aslam, M. Emerging renewable and sustainable energy technologies: State of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. ÚNICA—União da Indústria de Cana-de-Açúcar e Bioenergia (Brazilian Union of Sugarcane and Bioenergy). Cana-de-açúcar é fonte de 19% da Energia Consumida no Brasil. Available online: https://unica.com.br/noticias/cana-de-acucar-e-fonte-de-19-da-energia-consumida-no-brasil/ (accessed on 28 June 2022).
  27. Kota, K.B.; Shenbagaraj, S.; Sharma, P.K.; Sharma, A.K.; Ghodke, P.K.; Chen, W.H. Biomass torrefaction: An overview of process and technology assessment based on global readiness level. Fuel 2022, 324 Pt B, 124663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Murphy, J.D.; McCarthy, K. Ethanol production from energy crops and wastes for use as a transport fuel in Ireland. Appl. Energy 2005, 82, 148–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nie, Y.; Cai, W.; Wang, C.; Huang, G.; Ding, Q.; Yu, L.; Li, H.; Ji, D. Assessment of the potential and distribution of an energy crop at 1-km resolution from 2010 to 2100 in China—The case of sweet sorghum. Appl. Energy 2019, 239, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rentizelas, A.; Melo, I.C.; Alves Junior, P.N.; Campoli, J.S.; Rebelatto, D.A.N. Multi-criteria efficiency assessment of international biomass supply chain pathways using Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cavalcanti, E.J.C.; Carvalho, M.; Da Silva, D.R.S. Energy, exergy and exergoenvironmental analyses of a sugarcane bagasse power cogeneration system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 222, 113232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jonker, J.G.; Junginger, M.; Posada, J.; Ioiart, C.S.; Faaij, A.P.; Van Der Hilst, F. Economic performance and GHG emission intensity of sugarcane-and eucalyptus-derived biofuels and biobased chemicals in Brazil. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2019, 13, 950–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mahjoub, N.; Sahebi, H. The water-energy nexus at the hybrid bioenergy supply chain: A sustainable network design model. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 119, 106799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lamers, P.; Hamelinck, C.; Junginger, M.; Faaij, A. International bioenergy trade—A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2655–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mozaffari, M.R.; Ostovan, S.; Wanke, P.F. A Hybrid Genetic Algorithm-Ratio DEA Approach for Assessing Sustainable Efficiency in Two-Echelon Supply Chains. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mota, B.; Gomes, M.I.; Carvalho, A.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Towards supply chain sustainability: Economic, environmental and social design and planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 105, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Neutzling, D.M.; Land, A.; Seuring, S.; DO Nascimento, L.F.M. Linking sustainability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3448–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chavéz, M.M.M.; Sarache, W.; Costa, Y.; Soto, J. Multiobjective stochastic scheduling of upstream operations in a sustainable sugarcane supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Higgins, A. Scheduling of road vehicles in sugarcane transport: A case study at an Australian sugar mill. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 170, 987–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kadwa, M.; Bezuidenhout, C.N. Modelling sugarcane supply consistency at a sugar mill. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 111, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Walters, D.; Lancaster, G. Implementing value strategy through the value chain. Manag. Decis. 2000, 38, 160–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ramjeawon, T. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation from bagasse in Mauritius. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1727–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Campbell, J.E.; Lobell, D.B.; Field, C.B. Greater transportation energy and GHG offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science 2009, 324, 1055–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cherubini, F.; Bird, N.D.; Cowie, A.; Jungmeier, G.; Schlamadinger, B.; Woess-Gallasch, S. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 434–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nguyen, T.L.T.; Gheewala, S.H.; Sagisaka, M. Greenhouse gas savings potential of sugar cane bio-energy systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cherubini, F.; Stromman, A.H. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yuttitham, M.; Gheewala, S.H.; Chidthaisong, A. Carbon footprint of sugar produced from sugarcane in eastern Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 2119–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dunkelberg, E.; Finkbeiner, M.; Hirschl, B. Sugarcane ethanol production in Malawi: Measures to optimize the carbon footprint and to avoid indirect emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 71, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Soam, S.; Kumar, R.; Gupta, R.P.; Sharma, P.K.; Tuli, D.K.; Das, B. Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane molasses in northern and western India and its impact on Indian biofuel programme. Energy 2015, 83, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Seabra, J.E.A.; Macedo, I.C.; Chum, H.L.; Faroni, C.E.; Sarto, C.A. Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2011, 5, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Blengini, G.A.; Busto, M. The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agri-food chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy). J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1512–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Keyes, S.; Tyedmers, P.; Beazley, K. Evaluating the environmental impacts of conventional and organic apple production in Nova Scotia, Canada, through life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. European Commission. Analysis of Existing Environmental Footprint Methodologies for Products and Organizations: Recommendations, Rationale, and Alignment. Ispra, Italy, November 2011, Updated after Feedback by ADEME, DEFRA, WRI, ISSO. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Deliverable.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  54. Pizzol, M.; Laurent, A.; Sala, S.; Weidema, B.; Verones, F.; Koffler, C. Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: Quo vadis? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rebolledo-Leiva, R.; Angulo-Meza, L.; Iriarte, A.; González-Araya, M.C. Joint carbon footprint assessment and data envelopment analysis for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture production. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 593–594, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mendes, N.C.; Bueno, C.; Ometto, A.R. Avaliação de impacto do ciclo de vida: Revisão dos principais métodos. Production 2016, 26, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. EMBRAPA (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation). Correção e Adubação. 2022. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/agencia-de-informacao-tecnologica/cultivos/cana/producao/correcao-e-adubacao#:~:text=Doses%20entre%2080%20e%20150,planta%20como%20para%20as%20soqueiras (accessed on 27 April 2023).
  58. Nova Cana. Uso de Pesticidas e Herbicidas no Cultivo da Cana. Available online: https://www.novacana.com/noticias/uso-pesticidas-herbicidas-cultivo (accessed on 27 April 2023).
  59. Agri-Footprint. Agri-Footprint 6 Methodology Report. Part 2: Description of Data. Gouda, NL, 15 August 2022, Version 2. Available online: https://blonksustainability.nl/tools/agrifootprint (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  60. ReCiPe Midpoint. A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level Report I: Characterization. RIVM Report 2016-0104a. Available online: https://pre-sustainability.com/legacy/download/Report_ReCiPe_2017.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  61. FAOSTAT. Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities. 2023. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/methodology/tcf.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  62. Brentrup, F.; Pallière, C. Nitrogen Use Efficiency as an Agro-Environmental Indicator. In Proceedings of the OECD Workshop on Agri-Environmental Indicators, Leysin, Switzerland, 23–26 March 2010. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rosas, F. World Fertilizer Model—The World NPK Model. 2011. Available online: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103223/2/11-WP_520.NEW.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  64. IFA. Statistical Information. 2015. Available online: http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/HomePage/STATISTICS/Production-and-trade (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  65. Nemecek, T.; Schnetzer, J. Methods of Assessment of Direct Field Emissions for LCIs of Agricultural Production Systems: Data v3.0; Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART: Zurich, Switzerland, 2012; 34p. [Google Scholar]
  66. Amlinger, F.; Pollak, M.; Favoino, E. Heavy Metals and Organic Compounds from Wastes Used as Organic Fertilisers; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mels, A.; Bisschops, I.; Swart, B. Zware Metalen in Meststoffen—Vergelijking van urine en zwart Water met in Nederland Toegepaste Meststoffen; Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer (STOWA): Engelsbrand, Germany, 2008; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops and Derived Crop Products—Volume 1: Main Report (Vol. 1); UNESCO-IHE: Delft, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  69. Resende, R.S.; Nascimento, T.; De Carvalho, T.B.; Amorin, J.R.A.; Rodrigues, L. Reducing sugarcane irrigation demand through planting date adjustment in Alagoas state, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2021, 25, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Carr, M.K.V.; Knox, J.W. The water relations and irrigation requirements of sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum): A review. Exp. Agric. 2011, 47, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. García, C.A.; Fuentes, A.; Hennecke, A.; Riegelhaupt, E.; Manzini, F.; Masera, O. Life-cycle and greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol production in Mexico. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 2088–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Acero, A.P.; Rodríguez, C.; Ciroth, A. LCIA Methods: Impact Assessment Methods in Life Cycle Assessment and Their Impact Categories. Version: 1.5.2. 2015. Available online: https://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LCA-METHODS-v.1.5.2.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  73. Gunawan, T.B.; Romli, M.; Noor, E. Life Cycle Assessment of Cane-sugar in Indonesian Sugar Mill: Energy Use and GHG Emissions. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 536, 012059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. De Figueiredo, E.B.; La Scala, N., Jr. Greenhouse Gas Balance Due to the Conversion of Sugarcane Areas from Burned to Green Harvest in Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Leal, M.R.L.V.; Galdos, M.V.; Scarpare, F.V.; Seabra, J.E.A.; Walter, A.; Oliveira, C.O.F. Sugarcane straw availability, quality, recovery and energy use: A literature review. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 53, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00285 g001
Figure 1. Goiás´ microregion of Anápolis. Source: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2023).
Figure 1. Goiás´ microregion of Anápolis. Source: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2023).
Sustainability 16 00285 g001
Sustainability 16 00285 g002
Figure 2. LCA structure (inputs and outputs).
Figure 2. LCA structure (inputs and outputs).
Sustainability 16 00285 g002
Sustainability 16 00285 g003
Figure 3. Contribution of technical flows to the sugarcane supply chain processes.
Figure 3. Contribution of technical flows to the sugarcane supply chain processes.
Sustainability 16 00285 g003
Sustainability 16 00285 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of environmental impacts by method—Environmental Footprint (mid—point indicator).
Figure 4. Comparison of environmental impacts by method—Environmental Footprint (mid—point indicator).
Sustainability 16 00285 g004
Sustainability 16 00285 g005
Figure 5. Impact contribution to ecosystem damage.
Figure 5. Impact contribution to ecosystem damage.
Sustainability 16 00285 g005
Sustainability 16 00285 g006
Figure 6. Impact contribution to human health damage.
Figure 6. Impact contribution to human health damage.
Sustainability 16 00285 g006
Sustainability 16 00285 g007
Figure 7. Impact contribution to resource use.
Figure 7. Impact contribution to resource use.
Sustainability 16 00285 g007
Table 1. Input and output data for the LCA model (sugarcane cultivation).
Table 1. Input and output data for the LCA model (sugarcane cultivation).
InputDescriptionDataUnitSource
WaterWater use for irrigation 50,000–80,000Kg/ha.day[57]
Soil correctionUse of potassium (K2O) to increase productivity80–150Kg/ha[57]
FertilizerNitrogen fertilization to increase productivity30Kg/ha[58]
FungicideFungicide consumption in sugarcane cultivation0Kg/ha[58]
HerbicideVolume of herbicide in sugarcane cultivation200L/ha[58]
InsecticideConsumption of insecticides in sugarcane cultivation0.54Kg/ha[58]
LaborPeople per hectare of cultivated land0.08Worker/ha[13]
SeedlingQuantity of sugarcane seedlings used in cultivation10,000–18,000Kg/ha[57]
NematicideNematicides used in sugarcane cultivation10Kg/ha[57]
OutputDescriptionDataUnitSource
SugarcaneAmount of harvested sugarcane4,560,000Kg/haStudied mill
Table 2. Input and output data for the LCA model (sugarcane transportation).
Table 2. Input and output data for the LCA model (sugarcane transportation).
InputDescriptionDataUnitSource
SugarcaneAmount of harvested sugarcane4,560,000Kg/haStudied mill
FuelTruck consumption with 15-ton capacity30mL/t.km[58]
LaborNumber of people transporting sugarcane0.02Worker/t.km[13]
VehicleSugarcane transportation vehicle4,560,000Kg/kmStudied mill
OutputDescriptionDataUnitSource
Transported sugarcaneAmount of sugarcane transported from the farm to the processing plant4,560,000Kg/kmStudied mill
Table 3. Input and output data for the LCA model (ethanol production).
Table 3. Input and output data for the LCA model (ethanol production).
InputDescriptionDataUnitSource
SugarcaneAmount of harvested sugarcane4,560,000KgStudied mill
WaterAmount of water used in the industrial process for ethanol production8080Kg/t[57]
LaborNumber of people in the production process22.82Worker/t[13]
VehicleSugarcane transportation vehicle4,560,000Kg/kmStudied mill
OutputDescriptionDataUnitSource
Produced ethanolAmount of ethanol produced in the processing plant424,080L/dayStudied mill
BagasseAmount of residual bagasse from sugarcane processing0.28t/sugarcane tStudied mill
Table 4. Input and output data for the LCA model (ethanol transportation).
Table 4. Input and output data for the LCA model (ethanol transportation).
InputDescriptionDataUnitSource
FuelTruck consumption with 15-ton capacity30mL/t.km[58]
Produced ethanolAmount of transported ethanol to the marketplace424,080L/dayStudied mill
LaborPeople transporting ethanol6.64Worker/t.km[13]
VehicleEthanol transportation vehicle424,080L.kmStudied mill
OutputDescriptionDataUnitSource
Transported ethanolAmount of ethanol transported from the mill to the marketplace424,080L.kmStudied mill
Table 5. Comparison of LCA results for product system design variables.
Table 5. Comparison of LCA results for product system design variables.
IndicatorSugarcane CultivationSugarcane TransportEthanol ProductionEthanol TransportUnit
Human, non-carcinogenic toxicity5.72559 × 10−97.09834 × 10−94.44575 × 10−87.09834 × 10−9CTUh
Ionizing radiation, human health1.36808 × 10−32.15625 × 10−41.31765 × 10−22.15625 × 10−4kBq U-235 eq
Ozone depletion3.59266 × 10−111.84330 × 10−132.34491 × 10−91.84330 × 10−13kg CFC11 eq
Eco-toxicity, fresh water2.65815 × 10−11.29910 × 10−23.82426 × 10−11.29910 × 10−2CTUe
Human toxicity, cancer1.47766 × 10−94.92000 × 10−101.04267 × 10−84.92000 × 10−10CTUh
Marine eutrophication2.00530 × 10−32.16721 × 10−47.54317 × 10−42.16721 × 10−4kg N eq
Eutrophication, terrestrial2.80633 × 10−32.41488 × 10−38.18517 × 10−32.41488 × 10−3mol N eq
Acidification6.31577 × 10−44.68065 × 10−43.99318 × 10−34.68065 × 10−4mol H+ eq
Photochemical formation of ozone6.84707 × 10−54.13018 × 10−45.60343 × 10−34.13018 × 10−4kgNMVOC eq
Particulate matter4.86557 × 10−92.51044 × 10−94.31065 × 10−82.51044 × 10−9disease increase
Eutrophication, fresh water1.56441 × 10−54.82532 × 10−74.41246 × 10−44.82532 × 10−7kg P eq
Climate change2.07715 × 10−17.65839 × 10−21.29678 × 10+07.65839 × 10−2kg CO2 eq
Land use1.47718 × 10+17.21686 × 10−11.75906 × 10+07.21686 × 10−1En
Water use1.57499 × 10−2−1.62203 × 10−23.16267 × 10−21.60148 × 10−4m3 depriv.
Use of mineral resources and metals9.90939 × 10−94.43371 × 10−94.49728 × 10−64.43371 × 10−9kg Sb eq
Use of fossil resources2.61173 × 10−11.04057 × 10+04.30852 × 10+11.04057 × 10+0MJ
Climate change—Land use1.49428 × 10−15.51236 × 10−45.31494 × 10−55.51236 × 10−4kg CO2 eq
Fossil climate change5.82758 × 10−27.58975 × 10−21.29549 × 10+07.58975 × 10−2kg CO2 eq
Climate-biogenic changes1.19096 × 10−51.35169 × 10−41.23947 × 10−31.35169 × 10−4kg CO2 eq
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodrigues, T.G.; Machado, R.L. Life Cycle Assessment of the Sugarcane Supply Chain in the Brazilian Midwest Region. Sustainability 2024, 16, 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010285

AMA Style

Rodrigues TG, Machado RL. Life Cycle Assessment of the Sugarcane Supply Chain in the Brazilian Midwest Region. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010285

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodrigues, Thamine G., and Ricardo L. Machado. 2024. "Life Cycle Assessment of the Sugarcane Supply Chain in the Brazilian Midwest Region" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010285

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