Evaluation of opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of fresh and canned pineapple processing in central Thailand

• Autorzy: Usubharatana P. , Phungrassami H.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study was proposed to estimate the carbon footprint (CF) and analyze the environmental hotspot of pineapple cultivation and canned pineapple production, and offer opportunities to reduce its CF. The studied cultivation area covered 158 ha, divided into small, medium-sized, and large farms. Input data including organic fertilizer, synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, and fossil fuels were included in the cultivation process, while fossil fuels, chemicals, packaging, and wastewater treatment were included in the production process. The results revealed that the CF of pineapple cultivation was 172 g CO₂eq/kg of fresh pineapple, with the main contribution being fertilization usage, which accounted for 58-79% (depending on the size of the farm). In addition, canned pineapple had a CF of 738 g CO₂eq/can (30 oz.), with the main contribution being packaging production at 42%. Moreover, feasible ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – such as replacing fossil fuels with biomass, using biogas from wastewater treatment as a substitute for fuels used in the factory, humidity reduction in fossil fuels used in steam production, and introducing packaging from recycled cans – were all taken into account in this study.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 26
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.1725-1735,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Usubharatana P.

• Excellence Centre of Eco-Energy (ECEE), Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

autor

Phungrassami H.

• Excellence Centre of Eco-Energy (ECEE), Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

Bibliografia

• 1. REGMI A., MEADE B. Demand side drivers of global food security. Glob Food Sec. 2, 166, 2013.
• 2. LOEHR R.C., Pollution control for agriculture, Academic Press Inc. New York, 1977.
• 3. EDENHOFER O., PICHS-MADRUGA R., SOKONA Y., FARAHANI E., KADNER S., SEYBOTH K., ADLER A., BAUM I., BRUNNER S., EICKEMEIER P., KRIEMANN B., SAVOLAINEN J., SCHLOMER S., VON STECHOW C., ZWICKEL T. IPCC 2014 Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. In Minx JC (editor). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA, 2014.
• 4. ICAP (International Carbon Action Partnership), ETS Detailed Information Thailand, Available online: https:// icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option=com_etsmap&task=export&format=pdf&layout=list&systems%5B%5D=81.,(accessed on 16 October 2016), 2012.
• 5. ADEWALE C., HIGGINS S., GRANATSTEIN D., STOCKLE C.O., CARLSON B.R., ZAHER U.E., CARPENTER-BOGGS L. Identifying hotspots in the carbon footprint of a small scale organic vegetable farm. Agric Syst. 149, 112, 2016.
• 6. MOHAMMADI A., RAFIEE S., JAFARI A., KEYHANI A., DALGAAD T., KNUDSEN M.T., NGUYEN T.L.T., BOREK R., HERMANSEN J.E. Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for the benchmarking of environmental impacts in rice paddy production. J Clean Prod. 106, 521, 2015.
• 7. TORRES C.M., ANTON A., FERRER F., CASTELLS F., Greenhouse gas calculator at farm level address to the growers. Int J Life Cycle Assess., Available online: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-016-1068-Y, 2016.
• 8. PANDEY D., AGRAWAL M., Carbon footprint estimation in the agriculture sector. In Muthu SS. ed. Assessment of carbon footprint in different industrial sectors. Springer, 25, 2014.
• 9. CORDES H., IRIARTE A., VILLALOBOS P. Evaluating the carbon footprint of Chilean organic blueberry production. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 21, 281, 2016.
• 10. WROBEL-JEDRZEJEWSKA M., STEPLEWSKA U., KULETA P., PRZYBYSZ L., POLAK E. Carbon footprint of fruit paste technology. Pol J Environ Stud. 25 (1), 341, 2016.
• 11. PLAWECKI R., PIRONG R., MONTRI A., HAMM M.W. Comparative carbon footprint assessment of winter lettuce production in two climatic zones for Midwestern market. Renew Agr Food Syst. 29, 310, 2014.
• 12. INGWERSEN W.W. Life cycle assessment of fresh pineapple from Costa Rica. J Clean Prod. 35, 152, 2012.
• 13. WAFF (West Africa Fair Fruit), Summary of studies on environmental performance of fresh pineapple produced in Ghana for export to Europe, 2011, Available online: http://www.twinn.com.au/pdf/C-footprint-of-pineapple-production-and-transport-WAFF.pdf., (accessed on 07 November 2016), 2011.
• 14. BRENTON P., EDWARDS-JONES G., JENSEN M.F., Carbon Footprints and Food Systems, Do Current Accounting Methodologies Disadvantage Developing Countries?, The World Bank. Washington D.C., 2010.
• 15. FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistic Division, Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data, (accessed on 04 October 2016), 2016.
• 16. ISO14067, Greenhouse gases-carbon footprint of products-requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication, International Organization for Standardization. Geneva. Switzerland, 2013.
• 17. ISO14040, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework, International Organization of Standardization. Geneva. Switzerland, 2006.
• 18. ISO14044, Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelines, International Organization for Standards, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
• 19. VINYES E., GASOL C.M., ASIN L., ALEGRE S., MUNOZ P. Life cycle assessment of multiyear peach production. J Clean Prod. 104, 68, 2015.
• 20. OAE (Office of Agricultural Economics), Agricultural statistics of Thailand 2010, Available online: http://www.oae.go.th/download/download_journal/yearbook53.pdf., (accessed on 15 October 2016), 2010.
• 21. IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006.
• 22. AKHTAR S., SHAKEEL S., MEHMOOD A., HAMID A., SAIF S. Comparative analysis of animal manure for soil conditioning. Intl J Agron Plant Prod. 4, 3360, 2013.
• 23. ECOINVENT CENTRE. Ecoinvent database Ver.2.2. categories for processes, Ecoinvent Centre, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich, Switzerland, 2010.
• 24. MTEC, Thai national life cycle inventory database, National Metal and Materials Technology Center, National Science and Technology Development Agency of Thailand, 2014.
• 25. DIW (Department of Industrial Works), Industrial sector codes of practice for pollution prevention (Cleaner Technology): Canned fruit and vegetables (pineapples) industry, Available online: http://php.diw.go.th/ctu/files/pdf/codeofpractice_cannedfood_th.pdf., (accessed on 04 November 2016), 2002.
• 26. AHMED O.H., HUSNI M.H.A., ANUAR A.R., HANAFI M.M. Towards sustainable use of potassium in pineapple waste. Sci World J. 4, 1007, 2004.
• 27. PRACHYALAK P., CHAVALIT M., KARNVIBOON P., Using stems and leaves of pineapple with fresh grass as basal feed for lactating cows. Annual Research Report year 1999. Bureau of Animal Nutrition Development, Department of Livestock Development. Available online: http://nutrition.dld.go.th/Research%20Report53-55/Research_Knowlage/RESEARCH/research_full/2542/R4212.pdf., (accessed on 04 November 2016), 1999.
• 28. ANDREAE M.O., MERLET P., Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Glob Change Biogeochem Cy. 15, 955, 2001.
• 29. DOA (Department of Agriculture), Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for pineapple, 2007, Available online: http://gap.doae.go.th/toon/4/gap.html., (accessed on 11 October 2016), 2007.
• 30. YUTTITHAM M., GHEEWALA S.H., CHIDTHAISONG A. Carbon footprint of sugar produced from sugarcane in eastern Thailand. J Clean Prod. 19, 2119, 2011.
• 31. CHALLCHAROENWATTANA A., PHARINO C. Co-benefits of household waste recycling for local community’s sustainable waste management in Thailand, Sustainability. 7, 7417, 2015.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15244/pjoes/69442