Environmental Impacts Associated to Different Stages Spanning from Harvesting to Industrialization of Pineapple through Life Cycle Assessment
Source abstract
Abstract
In this research, environmental impacts associated with the harvest and processing of pineapple (fresh-packed, in syrup, and dehydrated) were determined using the life cycle assessment (LCA) tool and specialized software SimaPro® (version 8.4), according to ISO14040:2006 and ISO14044:2006 standards. The information used to develop inventory included field interviews and industrial visits within the study area. The functional unit was defined as one kilogram of fruit. The selected impact categories were carbon footprint, water footprint, and energy footprint; the results obtained for the agronomic stage were 0.47 kg CO2 eq (equivalent), 78 L of water, and 9.09 MJ, respectively. The growth stage of the pineapple plant was found to be the one that generates greatest environmental impacts for all three categories. For packaged fruit, 0.58 kg CO2 eq, 82 L of water, and 11.03 MJ were quantified; for pineapples in syrup it was 1.12 kg CO2 eq, 103 L of water, and 19.28 MJ; and for dehydrated fruit, it was 5.12 kg CO2 eq, 782 L of water and 97.04 MJ. This concludes that the most significant environmental impact occurred in all cases during the pineapple cultivation stage.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Green IT and Sustainability
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Veracruzana, Circuito Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán, Zona Universitaria, Xalapa 91040, Veracruz, Mexico
Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Veracruzana, Circuito Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán, Zona Universitaria, Xalapa 91040, Veracruz, Mexico
References (67)
Show source-provided references
1. (2017). Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: A Report Produced for the G20 Presidency of Germany, FAO.
2. (2019). International Energy Agency CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2019, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
3. Projected water consumption in future global agriculture: Scenarios and related impacts10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.019 ↗
4. Monthly water stress: Spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.031 ↗
5. FAO, and WWC (2015). Towards a Water and Food Secure Future: Critical Perspectives for Policy-Makers, FAO & WWC.
6. Carbon Footprint Estimation in the Agriculture Sector
7. Joint carbon footprint assessment and data envelopment analysis for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture production
8. Cumulative Energy Demand As Predictor for the Environmental Burden of Commodity Production10.1021/es902870s ↗
9. A Cumulative Energy Demand indicator (CED), life cycle based, for industrial waste management decision making10.1016/j.wasman.2013.08.004 ↗
10. Water Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment as approaches to assess potential impacts of products on water consumption. Key learning points from pilot studies on tea and margarine10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.015 ↗
11. Assessing sustainability of agriculture through water footprint analysis and in-stream monitoring activities10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.229 ↗
12. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2020, August 31). ISO 14044 Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14044:ed-1:v1:es.
13. Joy, P.P. (2020, August 31). Benefits and Uses of Pineapple. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pp_Joy/publication/306017037_Benefits_and_uses_of_pineapple/links/57aad02f08ae3765c3b63025/Benefits-and-uses-of-pineapple.pdf.
14. (2020, August 31). Crops, Mexico, Pineapple, Official Data (2018). Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.
15. (2020, May 15). Piña Mexicana. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/257084/Potencial-Pi_a.pdf.
16. Crivelli, C. (2017). Análisis del Ciclo de Vida de dos sistemas de manejo para la producción de piña en México. [Master’s Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d’Enginyeria Civil i Ambiental].
17. Silvetti, F., and Cáceres, D. (2015). La expansión de monocultivos de exportación en Argentina y Costa Rica. Conflictos Socioambientales y Lucha Campesina Por la Justicia Ambiental, Mundo Agrar.
18. Evaluation of Opportunities to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Fresh and Canned Pineapple Processing in Central Thailand10.15244/pjoes/69442 ↗
19. Life cycle environmental impacts of fruits consumption in the UK10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.012 ↗
20. Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Fresh and Processed Pineapple in the Philippines
21. Life cycle assessment of fresh pineapple from Costa Rica10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.035 ↗
22. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2020, August 31). ISO 14040 Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:es.
23. Aguayo, F., Peralta, M.E., Lama, J.R., and Soltero, V.M. (2011). Ecodiseño Ingeniería Sostenible de la Cuna a la Tumba (C2C), RC Libros. [1st ed.].
24. Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.001 ↗
25. Besnier, A., Bosque, F., Farrant, L., Labau, M., Lempereur, V., and Penavayre, S. (2019, August 28). Analyse de cycle de vie de filières agro-alimentaires. Available online: https://www.vignevin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACYDU_Synth%C3%A8seAcvEnviro.pdf.
26. (2020, April 03). Fonction, Unité Fonctionnelle et flux de référence. Available online: http://stockage.univ-valenciennes.fr/MenetACVBAT20120704/acvbat/chap03/co/ch03_160_3-2-1.html.
27. Haya, E. (2020, April 03). Análisis de Ciclo de Vida. Available online: https://www.eoi.es/es/file/66611/download?token=BTXaL249.
28. ReCiPe2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y ↗
29. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2019, August 31). ISO 14067 Greenhouse Gases—Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:14067:ed-1:v1:es.
30. Water Accounting and Vulnerability Evaluation (WAVE): Considering Atmospheric Evaporation Recycling and the Risk of Freshwater Depletion in Water Footprinting10.1021/es404994t ↗
31. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2020, August 31). ISO 14046 Environmental management—water footprint—Principles, requirements and guidelines. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:14046:ed-1:v1:es.
32. (2020, May 13). Análisis de Ciclo de Vida y Huella de Carbono. Available online: http://www.comunidadism.es/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/PUB-2009-033-f-C-001_analisis-ACV-y-huella-de-carbonoV2CAST.pdf.
33. (2020, May 20). Life Cycle Environmental Impacts Study for Europe, Middle East and Africa (AMEA). Available online: https://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/getpdf.aspx/c05876603.pdf.
34. Stranddfort, H.K., Hoffmann, L., and Schmidt, A. (2005). Impact Categories, Normalization and Weighting in LCA.
35. Water Footprint of crop productions: A review10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.022 ↗
36. Bockel, L.T., and Jönsson, O.M. (2011). Carbon Footprinting Across the Food Value Chain: A New Profitable Low Carbon Initiative? A Review of the Main Benefits for Businesses, Public Bodies and Issues for Developing Countries, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
37. Hoesktra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard, Earthscan. [1st ed.].
38. Hischier, R., Althaus, H.-J., Doka, G., Frischknecht, R., Humbert, S., Koellner, T., Margni, M., Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., and Dones, R. (2013). Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. [3rd ed.].
39. SENER (Secretaría de Energía) (2020, April 18). Balance Nacional de Energía 2018. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/528054/Balance_Nacional_de_Energ_a_2018.pdf.
40. International Energy Agency (2019). World Energy Balances 2019, OECD Publishing.
41. International Energy Agency (2019). Electricity Information 2000, OECD Publishing.
42. Secretaría de Energía (SENER) (2020, April 18). Programa de Desarrollo del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional 2018–2032. Available online: https://base.energia.gob.mx/prodesen/PRODESEN2018/PRODESEN18.pdf.
43. Is Cumulative Fossil Energy Demand a Useful Indicator for the Environmental Performance of Products?10.1021/es051689g ↗
44. Cumulative energy demand in LCA: The energy harvested approach10.1007/s11367-015-0897-4 ↗
45. From cumulated energy demand to cumulated raw material demand: The material footprint as a sum parameter in life cycle assessment
46. Martínez, P., Escudero, M., Romero, A., and Hernández, A. Personal communication.
47. Buendía, L., Domínguez, C., and Sánchez, O. Personal communication.
48. Secretaría de Energía (SENER) (2020, April 18). Sistema de Información de Energía. Available online: http://sie.energia.gob.mx.
49. Life cycle assessment of capital goods in waste management systems10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.037 ↗
50. (2020, May 25). D3.5 Report on the LCA of the Solution. Available online: http://www.digesmart.eu/documentos/D3.5%20Report%20on%20the%20life%20cycle%20assessment%20study%20of%20the%20solution_(public)_EN.pdf.
51. Henry, B., Ledgard, S., Nebel, B., and Wiedemann, S. (2016). Guidelines for Conducting Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Performance of Wool Textiles, International Wool Textile Organization. [1st ed.].
52. (2020, August 19). Cuadernillo municipal de Juan Rodríguez Clara, Ver 2019. Available online: http://ceieg.veracruz.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/06/Juan-Rodr%C3%ADguez-Clara_2019.pdf.
53. (2020, February 29). Ecoinvent Database. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html.
54. Water footprint: Methodologies and a case study for assessing the impacts of water use10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.003 ↗
55. Analysis of Energy Consumption in Pineapple Cultivation in Malaysia: A Case Study Pertanika
56. Moss, R. (2020, August 31). Summary of Studies on Environmental Performance of Fresh Pineapple Produced in Ghana for Export to Europe 2011. Available online: https://www.twinn.com.au/pdf/C-footprint-of-pineapple-production-and-transport-WAFF.pdf.
57. Nataša, S. (2011). Water Footprint Assessment Bananas and Pineapples, Soil & More International.
58. Water Footprint and Impact of Water Consumption for Food, Feed, Fuel Crops Production in Thailand10.3390/w6061698 ↗
59. Techno-Economic Analysis of the Use of Fired Cogeneration Systems Based on Sugar Cane Bagasse in South Eastern and Mid-Western Regions of Mexico
60. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol production in Mexico10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.072 ↗
61. The Mexican Sugarcane Industry: Overview, Constraints, Current Status and Long-Term Trends10.1007/s12355-012-0151-3 ↗
62. Renewable energy research progress in Mexico: A review10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.004 ↗
63. GIS-based modeling of residual biomass availability for energy and production in Mexico10.1016/j.rser.2019.109610 ↗
64. Annual biomass variation of agriculture crops and forestry residues, and seasonality of crop residues for energy production in Mexico10.1016/j.fbp.2019.10.005 ↗
65. A novel framework for analyzing the green value of food supply chain based on life cycle assessment10.1007/s10098-016-1192-1 ↗
66. Using carbon footprint to evaluate environmental issues of food transportation
67. Goodarzi, S., Fahimnia, B., and Sarkis, J. (2019). Supply Chain Carbon Management, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies.