Life cycle energy and carbon emissions of ergosterol from mushroom residues

Moura, Bruna; Iten, Muriel; Mata, Teresa M.; Martins, António A.

doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.157

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A product's Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) represents the direct and indirect energy used throughout the life cycle, including the energy consumed during the extraction, manufacturing, and disposal of the raw and auxiliary materials [42]. Both the impact categories, i.e., GWP and CED are commonly studied by LCA practitioners with special reference to the Energy sector [28,43]. A complementary analysis of results was performed considering the uncertainty analysis of the LCA for these categories, as the lifecycle uncertainties may have a relevant influence on the LCA interpretation process [18,44].…”

Section: Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Lca Interpretation Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allocation methodological choices in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a relevant issue for the Circular Bioeconomy context. The recent Product Environmental Footprint Guide from the European Commission includes the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) as a new way to deal with energy recovery/recycling processes. This paper investigated CFF vs. other different LCA allocation methods in Brazilian briquette production. A cradle-to-gate LCA study was conducted considering 1 MJ of energy from recovered and dedicated Eucalyptus briquette production. Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) were selected as the impact categories to evaluate the allocation methods choice that influences the potential impacts. LCA results were compared regarding four allocation methods. Eucalyptus wood as a biomass supply scenario achieved impact results up to 4.3 kg CO2-eq. for GWP and 0.0272 MJ-eq. for CED. The recovery wood scenario presented LCA burdens reduction by up to 206% for GWP, however a 492% increase in the CED results. CFF provided the lowest results for both impact categories. However, the CFF method still doesn’t address particular aspects of circular bioenergy systems. Biomass and bioenergy LCA require further adjustments focusing on biochemical flows in the CFF calculation procedure to lead the development of innovative circular business models.

show abstract