The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment
2.1.1. Definitions of Goal and Scope
- Scenario 1: briquettes made of wood from a dedicated forest energy supply. Brazil is a world reference for tree plantation productivity, with high annual production volumes of wood per area and short plantation cycles [28]. Brazilian planted forests occupy an area of 9.55 million hectares, with 78% being Eucalyptus species [29], used in the production of pulp and paper, wood-based panels, and for energy purposes.
- Scenario 2: briquettes made of wood waste with 50% of the heating value compared to Scenario 1. This scenario was chosen because urban pruning residues have a high moisture and ash content, which reduces the quality of the biomass. [30] also analyzed the useful calorific value of biomass from urban pruning waste in Recife, Brazil, where it obtained an average value of 6.18 MJ/kg, while eucalyptus biomass has an approximate useful calorific value of 12.14 MJ/kg [31].
- Scenario 3: briquette production made of wood waste with the same heating value as the wood from a dedicated forest energy supply (Scenario 1). Therefore, this scenario was performed disregarding any possible difference in the efficiency of the heating value between wood and residual wood.
2.1.2. Life Cycle Inventory, Data Quality, and Main Assumptions
2.1.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and LCA Interpretation of Results
2.2. System Allocation Methods
2.2.1. 50/50 Method
- E is the environmental burden (e.g., GWP, CED);
- R1 is the ratio of material in the input to the production that has been recycled in a previous system [0, 1];
- R2 is the ratio of the material in the product that will be recycled in a subsequent system [0, 1];
- EV is the environmental burdens from virgin/primary material production;
- ED is the environmental burdens from waste disposal;
- ERin is the environmental burdens from the recycling process supplying recycled/secondary material to the product;
- ERout is the environmental burdens from the recycling process accepting materials from the product.
2.2.2. Quality-Adjusted 50/50 Method
- E*D indicates the avoided ED through recycling;
- QS is the quality of the recycled material used for the investigated product [0–1];
- QP is the quality of primary/virgin material used for the investigated product [0–1];
- E*V indicates the avoided EV through recycling.
2.2.3. Circular Footprint Formula
- A is a factor that represents the balance between supply and demand for recycled material [0.2–0.8];
- QSin is the quality of recycled material entering the life cycle [0–1];
- QSout is the quality of recycled material leaving the life cycle [0–1];
- B is an allocation factor of energy recovery processes that applies both to burdens and credits;
- R3 is the ratio of the material in the product that is used for energy recovery at End-of-Life [0–1];
- EER is the specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the energy recovery process (e.g., incineration with energy recovery, landfill with energy recovery, etc.);
- LHV is the Lower Heating Value of the material [MJ/kg];
- XER,heat is the efficiency of the energy recovery process for heat [0–1];
- ESE,heat is the specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) that would have arisen from the specific substituted heat source [0–1];
- XER,elec is the efficiency of the energy recovery process for electricity [0–1];
- ESE,elec is the specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) that would have arisen from the specific substituted electricity source [0–1];
2.2.4. Designed Tests for the LCA Allocation Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Overall LCA Results
3.2. Allocation Method’s Effects on the LCA Results
3.3. Managerial/Policy Implications
- Physical flows could be determined by the total mass of recovered resources in the system based on cascading use of resources. This can be evaluated based on the use of indicators such as the (CF) [53] and other mass-related circular indexes.
- Biochemical flows should be based on the renewability and biodegradability of the resources in the investigated system, and for the biomass briquettes, some relevant issues to be covered are carbon cycle and water balance. Trees and other renewable resources can provide carbon sequestration and contribute to air quality regulation and water provisioning [54]. Therefore, we may consider such resources performing ecosystem restoration in the biological cycle of Circular Bioeconomy systems. Other examples of biochemical flows would be chemical balances for food and feed-based products, where nutrient cycles might have an essential role in the system’s circularity performance.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Venkatesh, G. Circular Bio-Economy—Paradigm for the Future: Systematic Review of Scientific Journal Publications from 2015 to 2021. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2022, 2, 231–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.-Y.; Tsai, C.-Y.; Liu, C.-W.; Wang, S.-W.; Kim, H.; Fan, C. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Agricultural Wastes toward Circular Bioeconomy. iScience 2021, 24, 102704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Burgos, W.J.; Bittencourt Sydney, E.; Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros, A.; Magalhães, A.I.; de Carvalho, J.C.; Karp, S.G.; Porto de Souza Vandenberghe, L.; Junior Letti, L.A.; Thomaz Soccol, V.; de Melo Pereira, G.V.; et al. Agro-Industrial Wastewater in a Circular Economy: Characteristics, Impacts and Applications for Bioenergy and Biochemicals. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 341, 125795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omran, B.A.; Baek, K.-H. Valorization of Agro-Industrial Biowaste to Green Nanomaterials for Wastewater Treatment: Approaching Green Chemistry and Circular Economy Principles. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 311, 114806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bose, D.; Dey, A.; Banerjee, T. Aspects of Bioeconomy and Microbial Fuel Cell Technologies for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020, 13, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharya, R.; Bose, D. Energy and Water: COVID-19 Impacts and Implications for Interconnected Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2022, 42, e14018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jain, A.; Sarsaiya, S.; Kumar Awasthi, M.; Singh, R.; Rajput, R.; Mishra, U.C.; Chen, J.; Shi, J. Bioenergy and Bio-Products from Bio-Waste and Its Associated Modern Circular Economy: Current Research Trends, Challenges, and Future Outlooks. Fuel 2022, 307, 121859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koytsoumpa, E.I.; Magiri-Skouloudi, D.; Karellas, S.; Kakaras, E. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Utilization: A Review on the Potential Deployment towards a European Circular Bioeconomy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, H.Y.; Chang, C.-K.; Khoo, K.S.; Chew, K.W.; Chia, S.R.; Lim, J.W.; Chang, J.-S.; Show, P.L. Waste Biorefinery towards a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy: A Solution to Global Issues. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2021, 14, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohanty, A.; Mankoti, M.; Rout, P.R.; Meena, S.S.; Dewan, S.; Kalia, B.; Varjani, S.; Wong, J.W.C.; Banu, J.R. Sustainable Utilization of Food Waste for Bioenergy Production: A Step towards Circular Bioeconomy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 365, 109538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Camacho, C.A.; Montoya-Torres, J.R.; Jaegler, A.; Gondran, N. Sustainability Metrics for Real Case Applications of the Supply Chain Network Design Problem: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 231, 600–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Offei, F.; Koranteng, L.D.; Kemausuor, F. Integrated Bioethanol and Briquette Recovery from Rice Husk: A Biorefinery Analysis. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, I.; Cooke-Willis, M.; Song, B.; Hall, P. Densification of Torrefied Pinus Radiata Sawdust as a Solid Biofuel: Effect of Key Variables on the Durability and Hydrophobicity of Briquettes. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 214, 106719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinesha, P.; Kumar, S.; Rosen, M.A. Biomass Briquettes as an Alternative Fuel: A Comprehensive Review. Energy Technol. 2019, 7, 1801011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olugbade, T.; Ojo, O.; Mohammed, T. Influence of Binders on Combustion Properties of Biomass Briquettes: A Recent Review. Bioenergy Res. 2019, 12, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousset, P.; Caldeira-Pires, A.; Sablowski, A.; Rodrigues, T. LCA of Eucalyptus Wood Charcoal Briquettes. J. Clean Prod. 2011, 19, 1647–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dastjerdi, B.; Strezov, V.; Rajaeifar, M.A.; Kumar, R.; Behnia, M. A Systematic Review on Life Cycle Assessment of Different Waste to Energy Valorization Technologies. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 290, 125747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes Silva, D.A.; Nunes, A.O.; Piekarski, C.M.; da Silva Moris, V.A.; de Souza, L.S.M.; Rodrigues, T.O. Why Using Different Life Cycle Assessment Software Tools Can Generate Different Results for the Same Product System? A Cause—Effect Analysis of the Problem. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, D.A.L.; Giusti, G.; Rampasso, I.S.; Junior, A.C.F.; Marins, M.A.S.; Anholon, R. The Environmental Impacts of Face-to-Face and Remote University Classes during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1975–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekvall, T.; Gottfridsson, M.; Nellström, M.; Nilsson, J.; Rydberg, M.; Rydberg, T. Modelling Incineration for More Accurate Comparisons to Recycling in PEF and LCA. Waste Manag. 2021, 136, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermansson, F.; Ekvall, T.; Janssen, M.; Svanström, M. Allocation in Recycling of Composites - the Case of Life Cycle Assessment of Products from Carbon Fiber Composites. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022, 27, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermansson, F.; Janssen, M.; Svanström, M. Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment of Lignin. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1620–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ijassi, W.; Ben Rejeb, H.; Zwolinski, P. Environmental Impact Evaluation of Co-Products: Decision-Aid Tool for Allocation in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 2199–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navare, K.; Muys, B.; Vrancken, K.C.; Van Acker, K. Circular Economy Monitoring—How to Make It Apt for Biological Cycles? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekvall, T.; Albertsson, G.S.; Jelse, K. Modeling Recycling in Life Cycle Assessment; Swedish Life Cycle Center: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- ISO. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Requirements and Guidelines; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 14044. [Google Scholar]
- Araújo, Y.R.V.; de Góis, M.L.; Junior, L.M.C.; Carvalho, M. Carbon Footprint Associated with Four Disposal Scenarios for Urban Pruning Waste. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 1863–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, D.A.L.; Filleti, R.A.P.; Musule, R.; Matheus, T.T.; Freire, F. A Systematic Review and Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Pellets and Briquettes Production in Latin America. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBA. Indústria Brasileira de Árvores. Annual Report 2021. 93p. Online Resource. Available online: https://iba.org/datafiles/publicacoes/relatorios/relatorioiba2021-compactado.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Silva, T.C. Uso da Biomassa de Poda Urbana da Cidade do Recife-Pe Para Geração de Energia; Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco: Recife, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Foelkel, C. Eucalyptus Newsletter No 48. Eucalyptus Online Book Newsletter. 2015, Volume 33, p. 90. Available online: https://www.eucalyptus.com.br/news/pt_out15.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2023).
- EC. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules Guidance Version 6.3; European Commission-Joint Research Centre: Ispra, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ciroth, A.; Di Noi, C.; Lohse, T.; Srocka, M.O. 1.10 Comprehensive User Manual; GreenDelta: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, D.A.; Yamaji, F.M.; de Barros, J.L.; da Róz, A.L.; Nakashima, G.T. Caracterização de Biomassas Para a Briquetagem. Floresta 2015, 45, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lucena, D.A.; de Medeiros, R.D.; Fonseca, U.T. Aglomeração de Moinha de Carvão Vegetal e Sua Possível Aplicação Em Alto-Forno e Geração de Energia. Tecnol. Met. Mater. Min. 2013, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quirino, W.F.; Brito, J.O. Briquetagem de Resíduos Lignocelulósicos. Brasília, DF: LPF/IBAMA 1991. 10p. Online Resource. Available online: https://mundoflorestal.com.br/arquivos/briquetagem.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Felfli, F.F.; Mesa, P.J.M.; Rocha, J.D.; Filippetto, D.; Luengo, C.A.; Pippo, W.A. Biomass Briquetting and Its Perspectives in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjørn, A.; Moltesen, A.; Laurent, A.; Owsianiak, M.; Corona, A.; Birkved, M.; Hauschild, M.Z. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis BT-Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 117–165. ISBN 978-3-319-56475-3. [Google Scholar]
- Rodrigues, T.O.; Belizario-Silva, F.; Braga, T.E.N.; da Silveira Folegatti Matsuura, M.I. LCA—Life Cycle Inventory Analysis and Database BT-Life Cycle Engineering and Management of Products: Theory and Practice; de Oliveira, J.A., Lopes Silva, D.A., Puglieri, F.N., Saavedra, Y.M.B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 71–93. ISBN 978-3-030-78044-9. [Google Scholar]
- Souza, L.S.M.; Nunes, A.O.; Giusti, G.; Saavedra, Y.M.B.; Rodrigues, T.O.; Nunes Braga, T.E.; Lopes Silva, D.A. Evaluating and Ranking Secondary Data Sources to Be Used in the Brazilian LCA Data-base–“SICV Brasil”. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Principles Governing IPCC Work. 2015. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- VDI. Cumulative Energy Demand–Terms, Definitions, Methods of Calculation. VDI Guideline 4600; Verein Deutscher Ingenieure: Duseldorf, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Monteiro, H.; Moura, B.; Iten, M.; Mata, T.M.; Martins, A.A. Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Emissions of Ergosterol from Mushroom Residues. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saade, M.R.M.; Gomes, V.; Gomes da Silva, M. LCA—Interpretation of Results BT-Life Cycle Engineering and Management of Products: Theory and Practice; de Oliveira, J.A., Lopes Silva, D.A., Puglieri, F.N., Saavedra, Y.M.B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 121–141. ISBN 978-3-030-78044-9. [Google Scholar]
- Detzel, A.; Kauertz, B.; Grahl, B.; Heinisch, J. Texte 19/2016 Prüfung und Aktualisierung der Ökobilanzen für Getränkeverpackungen; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Allacker, K.; Mathieux, F.; Pennington, D.; Pant, R. The Search for an Appropriate End-of-Life Formula for the Purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint Initiative. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1441–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AFNOR. Repository of Good Practices. General Principles for an Environmental Communication on Mass Market Products. Part 0: General Principles and Methodological Framework; AFNOR: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rampasso, I.S.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Anholon, R.; Silva, D.A.L.; Pontes, T.; Miranda, J.D.A.; Dias, J.O. The Bioeconomy in Emerging Economies: A Study of the Critical Success Factors Based on Life Cycle Assessment and Delphi and Fuzzy-Delphi Methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 1254–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, D.V.; Pavan, A.L.R.; Saavedra, Y.M.B.; Silva, D.A.L. Trends and Perspectives between Life Cycle Assessment and Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review Connecting the Bioeconomy. In Proceedings of the 10th The International Workshop on Advances in Cleaner Production, Florence, Italy, 11 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 14044: 2006; Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Michiels, F.; Geeraerd, A. How to Decide and Visualize Whether Uncertainty or Variability Is Dominating in Life Cycle Assessment Results: A Systematic Review. Environ. Model. Softw. 2020, 133, 104841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Mendoza, J.M.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Gallego-Schmid, A. Circular Economy Implementation in the Agricultural Sector: Definition, Strategies and Indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, M.; Freire, F.; Garcia, R. Material Flow Analysis of Forest Biomass in Portugal to Support a Circular Bioeconomy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Bakshi, B.R. Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment While Encouraging Techno-ecological Synergies. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigamonti, L.; Mancini, E. Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 1937–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 1597260401. [Google Scholar]
- Burkhard, B.; de Groot, R.; Costanza, R.; Seppelt, R.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Potschin, M. Solutions for Sustaining Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakshi, B.R.; Ziv, G.; Lepech, M.D. Techno-Ecological Synergy: A Framework for Sustainable Engineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1752–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Shaw, M.R.; Cameron, D.R.; Underwood, E.C.; Daily, G.C. Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gopalakrishnan, V.; Bakshi, B.R.; Ziv, G. Assessing the Capacity of Local Ecosystems to Meet Indus-trial Demand for Ecosystem Services. AIChE J. 2016, 62, 3319–3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rugani, B.; Maia de Souza, D.; Weidema, B.P.; Bare, J.; Bakshi, B.; Grann, B.; Johnston, J.M.; Pavan, A.L.R.; Liu, X.; Laurent, A.; et al. Towards Integrating the Ecosystem Services Cascade Framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Cause-Effect Methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 1284–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, X.; Bakshi, B.R.; Rugani, B.; de Souza, D.M.; Bare, J.; Johnston, J.M.; Laurent, A.; Verones, F. Quantification and Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment: Application of the Cascade Framework to Rice Farming Systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brandão, M.; Ekvall, T.; Poulikidou, S.; Johansson, K.; Nilsson, J.; Nojpanya, P.; Wikström, A.; Rydberg, T. RED, PEF, and EPD: Conflicting Rules for Determining the Carbon Footprint of Biofuels Give Unclear Signals to Fuel Producers and Customers. Front. Clim. 2022, 4, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Declaration, E.P. General Programme Instructions for the International EPD System ‘3.0 2017. Available online: http://epd-australasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Programme-Instructions-v3.0.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
Flow | Unit | Quantity |
---|---|---|
Inputs | ||
electricity, high voltage from hydroelectric power station | kWh | 6.30 × 10−2 |
Roundwood for scenario 1 | kg | 1.05 × 10 |
wood waste for scenarios 2 and 3 | ||
Outputs | ||
Biomass Briquette | kg | 1.00 × 10 |
Approach. | Scenario | Equation |
---|---|---|
Avoided product | 1 | Wood Impacts + Energy Consumption Impacts for Briquetting wood—Treatment of Waste Wood on Landfill |
2 | Residual Wood Impacts + Energy Consumption Impacts for Briquetting Residual Wood—Treatment of Waste Wood on Landfill | |
3 | Residual Wood Impacts + Energy Consumption Impacts for Briquetting Residual Wood—Treatment of Waste Wood on Landfill | |
50/50 method | 1 | {0.5 × [(1 − R1) + (1 − R2)] × (Ev + Ed)} + [0.5 × (R1 × Erin + R2 × Erout)] |
2 | {0.5 × [(1 − R1) + (1 − R2)] × (Ev + Ed)} + [0.5 × (R1 × Erin + R2 × Erout)] | |
3 | {0.5 × [(1 − R1) + (1 − R2)] × (Ev + Ed)} + [0.5 × (R1 × Erin + R2 × Erout)] | |
Quality-adjusted 50/50 method | 1 | [(1 − R1) × EV] + [0.5 × R1 × (Erin + EV − Ed*)] + {0.5 × R2 × [Erout − (Qs/Qp) × Ev* + Ed]} + [(1 − R2) × Ed] |
2 | [(1 − R1) × EV] + [0.5 × R1 × (Erin + EV − Ed*)] + {0.5 × R2 × [Erout − (Qs/Qp) × Ev* + Ed]} + [(1 − R2) × Ed] | |
3 | [(1 − R1) × EV] + [0.5 × R1 × (Erin + EV − Ed*)] + {0.5 × R2 × [Erout − (Qs/Qp) × Ev* + Ed]} + [(1 − R2) × Ed] | |
Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) | 1 | [(1 − R1) × Ev] + {R1 × [A × Erin + (1 − A) × Ev × Qsin/Qp]} + [(1 − A) × R2 × (Eout − Ev* × (QSout/QP)] + {(1 − B) × R3 × [(Eer − LHV × Xerheat × Eseheat) − (LHV × Xerelec × Eseelec)]} + [(1 − R2 − R3) × Ed] |
2 | [(1 − R1) × Ev] + {R1 × [A × Erin + (1 − A) × Ev × Qsin/Qp]} + [(1 − A) × R2 × (Eout − Ev* × (QSout/QP)] + {[(1 − B) × R3 × [(Eer − LHV × Xerheat × Eseheat) − (LHV × Xerelec × Eseelec)]} + [(1 − R2 − R3) × Ed] | |
3 | [(1 − R1) × Ev] + {R1 × [A × Erin + (1 − A) × Ev × Qsin/Qp]} + [(1 − A) × R2 × (Eout − Ev* × (QSout/QP)] + {[(1 − B) × R3 × [(Eer − LHV × Xerheat × Eseheat) − (LHV × Xerelec × Eseelec)]} + [(1 − R2 − R3) × Ed] | |
Parameter description | ||
Factor A | A balance between supply and demand for recycled material [0.2–0.8] | |
Ed | is the environmental burdens of the waste disposal | |
Ed* | indicates Ed is avoided through recycling | |
Erin | is the environmental burdens of the recycling process supplying recycled material to the product | |
Erout | is the environmental burdens of the recycling process accepting materials from the product | |
Ev | is the environmental burdens of virgin material production | |
Ev* | indicates Ev is avoided through recycling | |
R1 | Share of recycled material [0–1] | |
R2 | the rate of recycling of material after use in the product [0–1] | |
Qp | is the quality of the material delivered by the primary production [0–1] | |
Qs | quality of material recycled from the investigated product [0–1] | |
Qsin | the quality of recycled material entering the life cycle [0–1] | |
Qsout | the quality of recycled material leaving the life cycle [0–1] | |
S | the quality of the recycled material divided by the quality of virgin material [0–1] | |
B | allocation factor of energy recovery processes: it applies both to burdens and credits—Equals to 0 as default | |
R3 | is the proportion of the material in the product that is used for energy recovery at EoL | |
Eer | specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the energy recovery process (e.g., incineration with energy recovery, landfill with energy recovery, …) | |
LHV | lower heating value of the material [MJ/kg] | |
Xerheat | the efficiency of the energy recovery process for heat | |
Eseheat | specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) that would have arisen from the specific substituted energy source. For this case, heat | |
Xerelec | the efficiency of the energy recovery process for electricity | |
Eseelec | specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) that would have arisen from the specific substituted energy source. For this case, electricity |
Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-eq. | Cumulative Energy Demand (MJ-eq.) | |
---|---|---|
Mean | 1.06 × 10 | 1.53 × 10−1 |
Standard deviation | 7.86 × 10−2 | 8.59 × 10−2 |
Minimum | 8.57 × 10−1 | 3.17 × 10−2 |
Maximum | 1.36 × 10 | 6.12 × 10−1 |
Median | 1.06 × 10 | 1.31 × 10−1 |
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
Farrapo, A.C., Jr.; Matheus, T.T.; Lagunes, R.M.; Filleti, R.; Yamaji, F.; Lopes Silva, D.A. The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032339
Farrapo AC Jr., Matheus TT, Lagunes RM, Filleti R, Yamaji F, Lopes Silva DA. The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032339
Chicago/Turabian StyleFarrapo, Antonio Carlos, Jr., Thiago Teixeira Matheus, Ricardo Musule Lagunes, Remo Filleti, Fabio Yamaji, and Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva. 2023. "The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032339