Erratum to: Life cycle assessment of chitosan production in India and Europe

Abstract

The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results for the Indian chitosan supply chain, as published in the article, contain an error in the BWater use^indicator. While water use during chitin and chitosan manufacturing were accounted for in the inventory analysis (167 L/kg chitin and 250 L/kg chitosan, see section 3.2 in the article), these flows were not covered in the impact assessment calculations, thus leading to an underestimate of the overall water use in the supply chain. In Table 1 and Table 2 below, we provide the corrected values for water use, for both chitin and chitosan. These tables replace the corresponding data for BWater Depletion^in Tables 17 and 18, respectively, in the supplementary material, where the detailed LCIA results are reported for the Indian supply chain.In section 4.1 of the article, the text reads: BIn water use, the water saving is higher than the water use^. Similarly, in section 5, the text reads: BThe use of shrimp shells as raw material affects the market for animal feed, resulting in a credit in many impact indicators, especially in water use, where the net result is a water saving^. In both cases, the statement that producing chitosan leads to a net overall water saving does not hold true anymore after the correction, since the induced water use in the chitosan factory is higher than the water saving associated to the raw material.Below, we provide corrected versions for Figs. 3, 4, and 7. It must be highlighted that compared to the figures in the article, only the water use indicator has been subject to corrections.The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx

Environmental and Economic Viability of Chitosan Production in Guayas-Ecuador: A Robust Investment and Life Cycle Analysis

“…The higher scores obtained in this study are primarily because of the more processes impacting the environment than similar literature. 23 , 24 , 39 Even with more processes considered, the current study showed scores below the baseline. The higher values obtained in this study can be attributed to the type and the method for environmental impact assessment.…”

“… 22 On the other hand, Muñoz et al analyzed and compared the life cycle of chitosan production from shrimp shells and crab shells in two different manufacturing locations in India and Europe. 23 , 24 They have focused on chitosan production’s environmental performance taking the process conditions and reagents into account to obtain chitosan.…”

The Environmental and Economic Viability of Chitosan Production in Guayas-Ecuador: A Robust Investment and Life Cycle Analysis

“…The decolorization step in chitosan production design in the current study is based on ethanol, which increases some of the environmental impacts in LCA. Besides that, Muñoz et al 23 did not include the decolorization step in their LCA analysis; this is why the study in Ecuador shows a higher impact of the non-carcinogenic toxicity category.…”

“…For this purpose, Gómez-Ríos et al reported a technical design for the chitosan production plant in Colombia with a plant simulation, equipment with dimensions, and costs analysis associated with the plant designed 22 . On the other hand, Muñoz et al analyzed and compared the life cycle of chitosan production from shrimp shells and crab shells in two different manufacturing locations in India and Europe 23 . They have focused on chitosan production's environmental performance taking the process conditions and reagents needed into account to obtain chitosan.…”

The Environmental and Economic Viability of Chitosan Production in Guayas-Ecuador: A Robust Investment and Life Cycle Analysis

“…Muñoz et al23 studied the life cycle of chitosan production in India and Europe. Since Muñoz et al have considered using shrimp shells for chitosan production in India, the finding comparisons between that study and this study are very realistic.…”