Comparison of Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods in Grain Processing—Studies Using Flour Production as an Example
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from, i.e., fuel combustion, manufacturing and natural processes that generate these gases emissions;
- indirect GHG emissions resulting from the use of energy media (electricity, heat) and/or raw materials in the production of a product.
2. Materials and Methods
Methodology | Description |
---|---|
IPCC—Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories [10] | Methodological guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories |
WRI GHG Protocol [13] | Specification for estimating greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services |
ISO 14040 [14] | Product life cycle assessments (LCA) |
ISO 14044 [15] | |
ISO 14067 [22] | Principles, requirements and guidelines for quantifying and reporting product carbon footprint (CFP) based on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards for life cycle assessment (LCA) |
PAS 2050 [23] | Determines the environmental impact of a company’s operations, products and services, and enables measurement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over their life cycle |
PAS 2060 [24] | Specification for demonstrating carbon neutrality; sets out the requirements needed to achieve and demonstrate carbon neutrality in all areas, including buildings, transportation, production, production lines and events |
Product | Methodology and Characteristics of the Study | Source |
---|---|---|
Bread | The carbon footprint was estimated according to the PAS 2050 methodology. The results were also calculated according to the ISO 14044 methodology to identify any differences in the two approaches and results. | [25] |
The attribution method was used. | [26] | |
The carbon footprint (CF) was assessed using a life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. | [27] |
3. Results and Discussion
4. Summary and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Negra, C.; Remans, R.; Attwood, S.; Jones, S.; Werneck, F.; Smith, A. Sustainable agri-food investments require multi-sector co-development of decision tools. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 110, 105851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corredig, M.; Colelli, G. Rethinking packaging for circular and sustainable food supply chains of the future. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palmieri, N.; Forleo, M.B.; Giannoccaro, G.; Suardi, A. Environmental impact of cereal straw management: An on-farm assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2950–2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nie, W.; Liu, C. Assessing food safety risks based on a geospatial analysis: Toward a cross-regional food safety management. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 6654–6663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gliwa, E. Wpływ zmian restrukturyzacyjnych na rozwój sektora rolno-spożywczego w Polsce. Prog. Econ. Sci. 2015, 2, 250-161. [Google Scholar]
- Poczta, W.; Beba, P. Rola przemysłu spożywczego w gospodarkach krajów UE. Probl. World Agric. 2014, 14, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, C.; Kendall, A. Life cycle inventory development for corn and stover production systems under different allocation methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 58, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbade, E.B. Land footprint and GHG emissions from global food loss. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 4430–4440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nabipour, A.H.; Ahmed, J.; Mobin Siddique, B.; Khairuddin, N.; Hassan, A. A comprehensive review on carbon footprint of regular diet and ways to improving lowered emissions. Results Eng. 2023, 18, 101054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
- Caro, D. Carbon Footprint. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garnett, T. Cooking Up a Storm—Food, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Our Changing Climate; Food Climate Research Network; University of Surrey: Guildford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 14064:2018; Greenhouse Gases—Part 1: Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- ISO 14040:2009; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
- ISO 14044:2009; Environmental Management, Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
- Chen, B.; Cui, J.; Dong, W.; Yan, C. Effects of Biodegradable Plastic Film on Carbon Footprint of Crop Production. Agriculture 2023, 13, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Carrasco, B.; Fernández-Lobato, L.; López-Sánchez, Y.; Vera, D. Life Cycle Assessment of Olive Oil Production in Turkey, a Territory with an Intensive Production Project. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muralikrishna, I.V.; Manickam, V. Chapter Five—Life Cycle Assessment. In Environmental Management; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, A.; Venkatesh, G.; Eskandari, S.; Rafiee, S. Eco-Efficiency Analysis to Improve Environmental Performance of Wheat Production. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holka, M.; Kowalska, J.; Jakubowska, M. Reducing Carbon Footprint of Agriculture—Can Organic Farming Help to Mitigate Climate Change? Agriculture 2022, 12, 1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, M.; Choubey, V.; Deepak, A.; Gedam, V.; Raut, R. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of dairy processing industry: A case study of North India. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 129331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14067:2018; Greenhouse Gases Carbon Footprint of Products Requirements and Guidelines for Uantification. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
- PAS 2050:2011; Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London, UK, 2011.
- PAS 2060:2014; Standard for Carbon Neutrality. London, UK, 2014.
- Espinoza-Orias, N.; Stichnothe, H.; Azapagic, A. The carbon footprint of bread. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2011, 16, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, J.K.; Arlbjørn, J.S. Product carbon footprint of rye bread. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiriacò, M.V.; Grossi, G.; Castaldi, S.; Valentini, R. The contribution to climate change of the organic versus conventional wheat farming: A case study on the carbon footprint of wholemeal bread production in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, B.M.; Aravindakshan, S. Carbon footprints of the Indian AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use) sector: A review. Carbon Footpr. 2023, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, C.; Zhai, Y.; Zhang, T.; Shen, X.; Bai, Y.; Hong, J. Carbon, energy and water footprints analysis of rapeseed oil production: A case study in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Situation on Agricultural Markets, Grain Market—Bureau of Analysis and Strategies of the National Center for Agricultural Support; Information Bulletin No. 3/2020; Warsaw, Poland, 2020.
- Campbell, G.M.; Webb, C.; Owens, G.W.; Scanlon, M.G. Milling and flour quality. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, Breadmaking, 2nd ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 188–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fei, L.; Xiaolin, L.; Zhangxuan, Q. Grain production space reconstruction: Connotation, mechanism and enlightenment. Environ. Dev. 2023, 45, 100818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akin, P.A.; Sezer, B.; Sanal, T.; Apaydin, H.; Koksel, H.; Boyaci, I. Multi-elemental analysis of flour types and breads by using laser induced breakdown spectroscopy. J. Cereal Sci. 2020, 92, 102920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niçin, R.; Özdemir, N.; Şimşek, Ö.; Çon, A.H. Production of volatiles relation to bread aroma in flour-based fermentation with yeast. Food Chem. 2022, 378, 132125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruisi, P.; Ingraffia, R.; Urso, V.; Giambalvo, D.; Alfonzo, A.; Corona, O.; Settanni, L.; Frenda, A. Influence of grain quality, semolinas and baker’s yeast on bread made from old landraces and modern genotypes of Sicilian durum wheat. Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 110029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Theertha, M.K.; Kumar, A.; Inamdar, A.; Sakhare, S.D. Effect of hydrothermal treatment on physical and semolina milling properties of barley. J. Food Eng. 2020, 287, 110142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Farias, P.; Vasconcelos, L.; Ferreira, M.; Pascall, M.; Tapia-Blácido, D. Nopal cladode (Opuntia ficus-indica) flour: Production, characterization, and evaluation for producing bioactive film. Food Pack. Shelf Life 2021, 29, 100703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wróbel-Jędrzejewska, M.; Markowska, J.; Bieńczak, A.; Woźniak, P.; Ignasiak, Ł.; Polak, E.; Kozłowicz, K.; Różyło, R. Carbon Footprint in Vegeburger Production Technology Using a Prototype Forming and Breading Device. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wróbel-Jędrzejewska, M.; Polak, E. Determination of carbon footprint in the processing of frozen vegetables using an online energy measurement system. J. Food Eng. 2022, 322, 110974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2023 (accessed on 10 October 2023).
- KOBiZE. Emission Factors of CO2, SO2, NOX, CO and Total Dust for Electricity Published in December 2022; KOBiZE: Warszawa, Poland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Oztemel, E.; Gursev, S. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. J. Intel. Manuf. 2020, 31, 127–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, S.; Yin, X.; Schneider, L.; Sykes, V.; Jagadamma, S.; Lee, J. Carbon footprint and net carbon gain of major long-term cropping systems under no-tillage. J. Environ. Man. 2022, 307, 114505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demartini, M.; Pinna, C.; Tonelli, F.; Terzi, S.; Sansone, C.; Testa, C. Food industry digitalization: From challenges and trends to opportunities and solutions. IFAC 2018, 51, 1371–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajewski, T. Changes in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agricultural Production. Sci. Yearbo. Ass. Agricult. Agribus. Econom. 2016, 18, 214–218. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.; Ruiz-Menjivar, J.; Tong, Q.; Zhang, J.; Yue, M. Examining the carbon footprint of rice production and consumption in Hubei, China: A life cycle assessment and uncertainty analysis approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 300, 113698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
CF value | |
CF of product, CF of process, CF of technology | |
CO2eq—equivalent emission volume expressed in kg (or other mass units) of CO2, GHG—the emission volume of a given greenhouse gas expressed in kg (or other mass units), —GWP (Global Warming Potential) value of a given greenhouse gas (kg CO2eq/kg GHG), —carbon footprint of the product [kg CO2eq/kg product], —the amount of direct emissions from the i-th source expressed in CO2 equivalent [kg/kg product], —the amount of indirect emissions from the j-th source expressed in CO2 equivalent [kg CO2eq/kg product]. |
Process Steps | Devices |
---|---|
I. Acceptance of grain | |
II. Grain storage | Chain conveyors, bucket conveyors, grain separator, filter cyclones, gravity transport, grain tanks, scales. |
III. Preparation of grain for milling | Bins, tanks at the mill, percenters, horizontal transport conveyors (augers and redlers), aspiration fans, aspiration filter cyclones, vertical transport conveyors (bucket elevators), billing scales with dams, combo cleaning device including aspiration channels, sortexes, wheat humidifiers, devices controlling the measurement of water dosage to the amount of wheat, scrubbing machine, air channel, dowilizer, water pumps, beater mill. |
IV. Proper milling | Scales, milling roller unit, flat pass sifters, pneumatic transport entollectors (sterilizers), porridge scale unit, porridge and bran projectors, filter cyclones, pass augers, check sifters, air locks with pneumocyclones, matadors (sterilizers), finished product transport sluices with crossovers to chambers, samplers (devices that take flour samples directly from production), pneumatic transport blowers. |
V. Composing flours | Flour chamber selectors, batching scales, horizontal transport, homogenizer, flour sifter including magnet dam, blower, matador (sterilizer), pneumatic transport including crossovers to chambers. |
V C. Germ packing | Gravity transport. |
V B. Bagging of bran | Gravity transport. |
V A. Mixing bran | Auger pickers, hydraulic pump, horizontal transport of bran, vertical transport (bran elevator), blower, aspiration filter cyclone, pneumatic crossovers. |
VI A. Loading of ready products in bulk | Bulk flour chamber selectors, horizontal transport (augers), screening machines including magnet dams, horizontal pass-through hopper (redler), pass-through loading sleeves, quantity scales. |
VI B. Bagging | Flour chamber selectors, horizontal transport (augers), sifters including magnet dams, weigh valve packer with metal detector, horizontal transport (conveyor belts), palletizer, wrapping machine. |
VI C. Packaging | Flour chamber selectors, horizontal transport (augers), screening machines including magnet dams, unit packers with metal detectors, conveyor belts, heating tunnels, palletizer. |
VI D. Loading of bran in bulk | Auger selectors from the bran chambers, horizontal transport (bran redler), drive-through loading sleeve, magnet dam, filter cyclone, blower. |
VII. Storage | - |
VIII. Loading of finished products in packages | High-bay forklifts, battery trucks, fuel combustion internal forklifts. |
Month | Production Volume | Energy | Diesel | Gasoline | Gas |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | kWh | L | L | kWh | |
January | 16697 | 1,047,000 | 5862 | 511 | 46,760 |
February | 12949 | 828,000 | 5862 | 511 | 34,720 |
March | 17771 | 1,085,000 | 5862 | 511 | 35,440 |
April | 15724 | 945,000 | 6191 | 572 | 25,310 |
May | 16521 | 949,000 | 6191 | 572 | 6916 |
June | 14839 | 842,000 | 6191 | 572 | 1151 |
July | 16176 | 954,000 | 5905 | 649 | 1006 |
August | 14686 | 869,000 | 5905 | 649 | 970 |
September | 15470 | 957,000 | 5905 | 649 | 4041 |
October | 17232 | 1,070,000 | 7878 | 525 | 7160 |
November | 16977 | 1,043,000 | 7878 | 525 | 22,810 |
December | 15268 | 966,000 | 7878 | 525 | 41,860 |
Sum | 190310 | 11,555,000 | 77,508 | 6771 | 228,144 |
Month | Electricity | Diesel | Gasoline | Gas | Emission | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emission | Share | Emission | Share | Emission | Share | Emission | Share | ||
Mg CO2eq | % | Mg CO2eq | % | Mg CO2eq | % | Mg CO2eq | % | Mg CO2eq | |
January | 741.276 | 96.59 | 15.593 | 2.03 | 1.201 | 0.16 | 9.352 | 1.22 | 767.422 |
February | 586.224 | 96.11 | 15.593 | 2.56 | 1.201 | 0.20 | 6.944 | 1.14 | 609.962 |
March | 768.180 | 96.98 | 15.593 | 1.97 | 1.201 | 0.15 | 7.088 | 0.89 | 792.062 |
April | 669.060 | 96.69 | 16.468 | 2.38 | 1.344 | 0.19 | 5.062 | 0.73 | 691.934 |
May | 671.892 | 97.22 | 16.468 | 2.38 | 1.344 | 0.19 | 1.383 | 0.20 | 691.087 |
June | 596.136 | 97.06 | 16.468 | 2.68 | 1.344 | 0.22 | 0.230 | 0.04 | 614.178 |
July | 675.432 | 97.48 | 15.707 | 2.27 | 1.525 | 0.22 | 0.201 | 0.03 | 692.866 |
August | 615.252 | 97.25 | 15.707 | 2.48 | 1.525 | 0.24 | 0.194 | 0.03 | 632.678 |
September | 677.556 | 97.41 | 15.707 | 2.26 | 1.525 | 0.22 | 0.808 | 0.12 | 695.597 |
October | 757.560 | 96.98 | 20.955 | 2.68 | 1.234 | 0.16 | 1.432 | 0.18 | 781.181 |
November | 738.444 | 96.50 | 20.955 | 2.74 | 1.234 | 0.16 | 4.562 | 0.60 | 765.195 |
December | 683.928 | 95.72 | 20.955 | 2.93 | 1.234 | 0.17 | 8.372 | 1.17 | 714.489 |
Sum | 8180.940 | 96.83 | 206.169 | 2.44 | 15.912 | 0.19 | 45.628 | 0.54 | 8448.651 |
Month | CF [g CO2eq/kg] |
---|---|
January | 46.0 |
February | 47.1 |
March | 44.6 |
April | 44.0 |
May | 41.8 |
June | 41.4 |
July | 42.8 |
August | 43.1 |
September | 45.0 |
October | 45.3 |
November | 45.1 |
December | 46.8 |
CFAV | 44.4 |
Stages of Food Production | Greenhouse Gas Emissions |
---|---|
Land use change | Above-ground changes in biomass due to deforestation and below-ground changes in soil carbon |
Farms | Methane emissions from cows, rice, fertilizer, manure and agricultural machinery |
Animal feed | On-farm emissions from crop production and processing for animal feed |
Processing | Emissions from energy consumption in the processing of raw agricultural products into final food products |
Transport | Emissions from energy use in transportation of food products at home and abroad |
Retail | Emissions from energy use in refrigeration and other retail processes |
Packaging | Emissions related to the production of packaging materials, transportation of materials and disposal of used packaging |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wróbel-Jędrzejewska, M.; Włodarczyk, E. Comparison of Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods in Grain Processing—Studies Using Flour Production as an Example. Agriculture 2024, 14, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010014
Wróbel-Jędrzejewska M, Włodarczyk E. Comparison of Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods in Grain Processing—Studies Using Flour Production as an Example. Agriculture. 2024; 14(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010014
Chicago/Turabian StyleWróbel-Jędrzejewska, Magdalena, and Ewelina Włodarczyk. 2024. "Comparison of Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods in Grain Processing—Studies Using Flour Production as an Example" Agriculture 14, no. 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010014
APA StyleWróbel-Jędrzejewska, M., & Włodarczyk, E. (2024). Comparison of Carbon Footprint Analysis Methods in Grain Processing—Studies Using Flour Production as an Example. Agriculture, 14(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010014