Energy and environmental indices through life cycle assessment of raisin production: A case study (Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran)

Accepted Manuscript Energy and Environmental Indices through Life Cycle Assessment of Raisin Production: A Case Study (Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran)

Behzad Elhami, Mahmoud Ghasemi Nejad Raini, Farshad Soheili-Fard PII:

S0960-1481(19)30517-8

DOI:

10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.034

Reference:

RENE 11458

To appear in:

Renewable Energy

Received Date:

06 October 2018

Accepted Date:

08 April 2019

Please cite this article as: Behzad Elhami, Mahmoud Ghasemi Nejad Raini, Farshad Soheili-Fard, Energy and Environmental Indices through Life Cycle Assessment of Raisin Production: A Case Study (Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran), Renewable Energy (2019), doi: 10.1016/j. renene.2019.04.034

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Title:

Energy and Environmental Indices through Life Cycle Assessment of Raisin Production: A Case Study (Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran)

Authors: Behzad Elhami, Mahmoud Ghasemi Nejad Raini*, Farshad Soheili-Fard Affiliation: Department of Agricultural Machinery and mechanization Engineering Agriculture Science and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran *Corresponding

author:

Mahmoud Ghasemi Nejad Raini

Complete Postal Address: Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Agriculture Science and Natural Resources University, Mollasani, Khuzestan, Iran.

Tel: (+98) 9166041652 Fax: (+98) 6136522425

E-mail: [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Comparison of energy indices and environmental consequences from grape

2

production to raisin packaging (case study: Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad

3

Province, Iran)

4

Abstract

5

The present study aimed to investigate the status of energy consumption and environmental

6

impacts in the raisin production using life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. Required data were

7

collected from 50 grape producers in Dena county and raisin production workshop in Yasuj

8

county through questionnaire and face-to-face interview. The energy equivalent of inputs and

9

outputs was obtained using related specific energy coefficients and environmental indices

10

including abiotic depletion (AD), acidification (AC), eutrophication (EUP), global warming

11

(GW), ozone layer depletion (OLD), human toxicity (HT), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity (FE),

12

marine aquatic ecotoxicity (ME), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE) and photochemical oxidation (PO)

13

were compared in vineyard, processing workshop, packaging and transportation phases using

14

Simapro software and CML2 baseline 2000 modeling approach. Results showed that based on

15

the production of 500 g packaged raisin, total input energy for vineyard and processing

16

workshop was calculated as 8.70 and 32.7 MJ and energy ratio was 3.38 and 0.7, respectively.

17

The contribution of electricity energy input in vineyard and grape energy input in processing

18

factory to the related total energy were calculated as 28% and 90%, respectively. Results

19

obtained from the analysis of environmental indices showed that the GW index is 4.258 kg CO2

20

eq per production of 500 g packaged raisin, which inputs production and consumption in

21

vineyard had a contribution of 95% to GW index. In other indices, emissions related to the

22

vineyard was higher than three other stages. Farmyard manure (FYM), machines and adhesive

23

tape in factory sector were indicated as major contributor to pollutant emissions in vineyard,

24

processing and packaging, respectively.

25

Keywords: energy; life cycle assessment; packaging; processing; raisin; vineyard.

26 27 28 1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Abbreviations AC AD EP EUP ER EI FAO FE FU FYM GW HT ISO LCA LCI LCIA ME OLD PO SE TE

Full form Acidification Abiotic Depletion Energy Productivity Eutrophication Energy Ratio Energy Intensity Food and Agriculture Organization Fresh water Aquatic Ecotoxicity Functional Unit Farmyard manure Global Warming Human Toxicity International Standardization Organization Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Inventory Life Cycle Impact Assessment Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Ozone Layer Depletion Photochemical oxidation Specific Energy Technical Efficiency

41

1. Introduction

42

Nowadays, most of agricultural products are based on using finite resources such as fossil fuels,

43

water resources and other non-renewable inputs. On the one hand, the limited availability of

44

energy resources and on the other hand, increasing the energy demand due to population growth

45

and growing demand for food are the factors which show the importance of the management of

46

energy consumption in macro and micro planning in the world. But indiscriminate use of energy

47

resources will cause environmental consequences such as pollution of water, soil, air, reduction

48

of soil fertility, soil erosion and resource depletion. Hence, efficient management of energy

49

consumption is necessary to apply suitable solution for reducing environmental impacts and is

50

considered as one of the important indices for sustainable development [1]. In recent years, life

51

cycle assessment (LCA) approach is turned to be a useful tool for investigating and determining

52

the environmental impacts of agricultural products and food industry, so that in most countries, it

53

is used as a tool for decision-making in agricultural production planning [2,3]. In the other

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

54

words, LCA is a method for determining all environmental impacts of a product, process or

55

service as well as determining all emitted pollutants and wastes [4,5].

56

Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) is one of the most important horticultural crops. Nowadays, grapes are

57

grown in a wide area of lands around the world. This fruit contains 82% water, 17.43% glucose,

58

0.5% fat and a very small proportion of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus

59

[6]. According to the latest FAO statistics, Iran is the 10th grape producer in the world (3% of

60

total production) with annual production of 2449500 t, and has 213000 ha lands under grape

61

cultivation and the average yield is 11.5 t.ha-1 [7]. Raisin is dried processed grape through

62

different methods such as solar method, shade method and acidic method. Iran with the annual

63

production of 123000 t raisin and exporting 33000 t to 70 countries, annually, is the third raisin

64

producer in the world after Turkey and United States [8]. In average, about 40% of produced

65

grape in Iran is devoted to raisin production. Urmia, Qazvin, Malayer, Quchan, Shahrud and

66

Yasuj regions are the major raisin producers in Iran [9]. The energy available in 100 g fresh

67

grape and 100 g raisin is 67 kcal and 268 kcal, respectively [10].

68

Due to the expansion of grape cultivation and the necessity of sustainability in the production of

69

this product because of fresh consumption and its processed products such as raisin, various

70

studies have been conducted for investigation of energy flow and environmental consequences of

71

grape [2,6,11-14]. For example, in a study that was conducted in West Azerbaijan Province,

72

energy flow and greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in grape life cycle were investigated.

73

Results obtained from this study showed that the total energy input and energy output for grape

74

production per hectare was 39968.49 MJ and 218713 MJ, respectively. Also GHG emissions of

75

grape production per hectare was estimated as 858.621 kg CO2 eq that nitrate fertilizer and

76

electricity had the highest contribution to the GHG emissions [15]. In a study that was conducted

77

in Nova Scotia, Canada, the environmental burdens of grape production as well as its processing

78

into red wine was investigated using LCA approach through grape production to recycling of

79

wine bottles. Based on the results, the contribution of grape production in vineyard, wine

80

production in factory, bottling the wines, transportation to market and final consumption to

81

global warming potential (GW) was calculated as 25%, 11.6%, 13.7%, 11.5% and 37.3%,

82

respectively [16]. In a research entitled the impact of environmental quality of grape for

83

production of red wine using LCA in Italy, it was suggested that in the grape production phases

84

in vineyard, the type of cropping pattern plays an important role in the intensity of environmental 3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

85

consequences. Also results indicated that direct emission due to agrochemicals (fertilizers and

86

pesticides) is the main factor for environmental hazards of grape cultivation which their

87

consumption can be reduced by cultivation of grape in a way that their distance on the row and

88

between the row was 0.8 m and 3 m [3].

89

Reviewing the literatures and different resources showed that in spite of multiple studies on the

90

trend of energy flow and environmental consequences of grape production and wine production

91

process, there is no research on the consumption and production of energy in different units in

92

raisin production. On the other hand, given Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province (southwest

93

of Iran) is placed in the first rank in terms of yield of grape production as 22.5 t.ha-1; so the

94

present study aimed to investigate and compare energy consumption and environmental indices

95

of raisin life cycle (grape production in vineyard, transportation, grape processing and

96

packaging).

97

2. Material and Methods

98

2.1. Grape cultivation to raisin packaging

99

For cultivation of grapevine, first, some cuttings of grapevine are cultivated in spring in a place

100

that named reservoir before budding and in next spring and after rooting, they will be transported

101

to pits and irrigated after cultivation. With increasing the air temperature, grapevines should be

102

irrigated every 5 days or once a week. The grape plants will be fruitful after 4 years and in 10th

103

year it will be completed. The yield of a grapevine is more than 200 kg. Grape harvesting is

104

started in early August and after harvesting, the specific share of harvested grape is sent to raisin

105

production workshop in Yasuj county [17]. It should be noted that the grape variety is very

106

effective in raisin production. Existence of stone reduces the raisin quality. So the major varieties

107

that are used for raisin production in Iran are Asgari and Pikami. Raisin color is one of the most

108

important qualitative characteristics. If grape’s ripening is uniform and they are dried in suitable

109

conditions, their color will be uniform. In raisin processing workshop, before drying step, grapes

110

are exposed to sulfur gas for 4 hours and put in boiling sodium hydroxide solution for 4 seconds

111

and immediately after that they are washed with cold water to speed up the drying and

112

evaporating their water content. Then the wrinkled grapes are dried either by sun light for two

113

days or by dryer under the temperature of 65°C for 4 hours. Dried raisins are entered to sand

114

winnowing apparatus to sieve them and after that they are sent to packaging unit. In packaging 4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

115

stage, the raisins tail is removed by a specific apparatus and will be polished and evenly coated

116

by dipping coconut oil on them. All raisins are packaged in 500-gram packages and after that are

117

placed in carton in the number of 10 and 20 and are sent to market.

118 119 120 121

2.2. introduction of study area and data collecting

122

Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province with the area of 16249 km2 and altitude of 1870 m from

123

sea level is placed between 30°9’ to 31°32’ northern latitude and 49°57’ to 50°42’ eastern

124

longitude (Fig. 1) [18]. Based on published statistics by Agriculture Jihad of Kohgiluyeh and

125

Boyer-Ahmad Province, Dena county is the major producer of grape with producing 85% of total

126

produced grape (almost 27800 t) in the region. So Dena county is determined as grape producer

127

with around 750 grape growers. Almost 200 grape growers devoted their specific share of their

128

grape to raisin production in Yasuj county. For determining sample size, the simple random

129

sampling method was used and sample size was determined as 50 through Cochran equation

130

(equation 1) [19]:

131

Fig.1. A view of raisin production workshop in Yasuj county.

𝑛=

𝑧2𝑝𝑞 𝑑2 1 𝑧2𝑝𝑞 𝑑2

1+𝑁(

(1) ― 1)

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

132

Where N is the number of grape growers who produce raisin (200), Z is acceptable confidence

133

coefficient in the level of 5% (1.96), p is the success of a feature in the society (0.5), q is the

134

failure of a feature in the society (0.5), d is acceptable error (0.05) and n required sample size for

135

collecting data through questionnaire (50) in vineyards. The data were collected from vineyards

136

and raisin production workshop through questionnaire. In vineyard, inputs included vehicles

137

used for inputs transportation to vineyard, sprayer, electricity, diesel fuel, consumed water, labor,

138

agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) and FYM and produced grape was considered as

139

output. In processing workshop, vehicle used for grape transportation to factory, grape devoted

140

for raisin production, sodium hydroxide solution, sulfur gas, water, electricity, natural gas, labor,

141

processing and packaging equipment, coconut oil, carton, plastic and adhesive tape were

142

considered as inputs and packaged raisin was identified as output.

143 144

Fig. 2. Geographic location of Kohgiluyeh va Boyerahmad in Iran.

145

2.3. Energy flow in vineyard and processing workshop

146

Energy of used inputs in Dena county’s vineyards was calculated based on grape production in 1

147

hectare through multiplying the amount of each individual used inputs by related specific energy

148

coefficient (MJ.ha-1). Output energy is also determined by multiplying grape yield by the related

149

specific energy coefficient. Energy flow in raisin production workshop was determined through

150

multiplying the specific energy coefficient of each individual input and output by the related

151

input and output in 8 hours. In order to compare the consumed and produced energy in vineyard 6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

152

and raisin production workshop, energy related to inputs and outputs was determined based on

153

500-gram raisin package. After calculation of total input energy, yield and output energy based

154

on 500-gram raisin package, energy indices were calculated through following equations [15]:

155

Energy Ratio =

Output Energy Input Energy

(2)

156 157

Energy Productivity =

158

Specific Energy =

Raisin output Input Energy

(3)

input Energy Raisin output

(4)

159 160

2.4. Life cycle assessment (LCA)

161

Based on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, environmental life cycle assessment has four

162

main stages including goal and scope definition (system boundary, functional unit (FU), final

163

product and premises), life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and

164

interpretation [20, 21] .

165

2.4.1. Goal and scope definition

166

An LCA study is started based on a clear expression of research goals. This expression is the

167

representative of research scopes and determines how and for whom the results are important.

168

Based on ISO standards, the research goal should be clearly defined and should be consistent

169

with intended applications. The present study aimed to investigate the environmental

170

consequences of raisin production considering grape production in vineyard, grape processing

171

and packaging. FU and system boundary are determined in this stage. Required grape for

172

production of 1 kg raisin is around 5 kg. So FU was considered as 500 g packaged raisin in all

173

four phases (vineyard, transportation, processing and packaging). As can be seen in Fig. 3, LCA

174

of raisin production was conducted from grape production in vineyard to packaging stage as

175

system boundary.

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

176 177

Fig 3. System boundary of the raisin’s life cycle.

178

2.4.2. life cycle inventory (LCI)

179

Providing an inventory of inputs with their related direct emissions (emissions due to input

180

consumption to the air, water and soil) and indirect emissions (emissions due to input

181

production) per producing 500 g packaged raisin is the main output of this stage which

182

considered as input for next stage (LCAI). These emissions can be calculated for vineyard,

183

transportation, processing and packaging. Operations in processing factory are very important

184

from environmental point of view, so for environmental assessment, these operations were

185

divided to processing and packaging and the related emissions were determined separately.

186

2.4.2.1. Vineyard

187

Emissions from vineyard due to input production (indirect emissions) and consumption (direct

188

emissions) have been tabulated in Table 1. Vineyard average yield is 24.67 t.ha-1 in the study

189

area which 44% of grape production is devoted for raisin production. The required grape for

190

producing 500 g of raisin is estimated as 2.5 kg. Direct emissions by input consumption depends

191

on weather, climate and management. So instead of direct measurements from vineyards, 8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

192

emission factors (as shown in Table 1) were used for estimating the emissions related to

193

chemical fertilizers and FYM [22,23]. Also the emissions caused by extraction of 1 MJ diesel

194

fuel, consumed electricity and carbon dioxide emitted to air by labor activities and emissions due

195

to pesticides to the soil have been highlighted as direct emissions in grape production. Direct

196

emissions caused by input consumption are obtained from multiplying the consumed amount of

197

each individual input by related emission factors [24].

198

Table 1. Life cycle inventory analysis for direct and indirect emissions in grape production Inputs/ outputs(Unit) A. Yield (kg) B. Indirect emissions 1. spray machine 2. Electricity (kwh) 3. Diesel fuel (L) 4. Water (m3) 5. Chemical fertilizers (kg) 6.FYM (kg) 7. Chemicals (kg) C. Direct emissions 1. From Chemical fertilizers and FYM (kg) to air- to water 1.1.Dinitrogen monoxide 1.2. Dinitrogen monoxide 1.3. Carbon dioxide 1.4. Ammonia 1.5. Ammonia 1.6. Nitrogen oxide 1.7. Phosphorus 1.8. Nitrate from

Average value (Unit/ 500g raisin) 2.5

Emission factors (kg unit-1)

Equation

0.036912 0.204392 0.006041 1.270452 0.058221 4.074516 0.003722

0.00001456 0.0640258 0.0112254 0.0009043 0.9892914 0.0015624 0.5431914 0.0891425

[

0.001×1

(5)

[

0.01×1.557 0.2×3.666

[

(7)

[

0.2×1.214

[

0.03×4.428

(9)

0.05×0.436

𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝑖𝑛

74.5 0.00241 0.00308 0.00286 0.000477

9

𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑

𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝑂𝑥

]

]

×

(

[

𝑘𝑔

𝑁𝑂3―

―𝑁

]

𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑

)[𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙

𝑀𝐽 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒

× 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟] 0.02191417 0.00000070 0.00000090 0.00000084 0.00000014

] ]

𝑘𝑔 𝑁2𝑂𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑔 𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑘𝑔 𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑

(10) 2.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

]

𝑘𝑔 𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3 ― 𝑁

𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3 ― 𝑁

(8)

(11) 2.1. Carbon dioxide 2.2. Sulfur dioxide 2.3.Methane 2.4. Dinitrogen monoxide 2.5.Ammonia

[

[

0.21×1

2. From diesel fuel (MJ) to air

𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2 ― 𝐶

(6)

0.1×1.214

] ]

𝑘𝑔 𝑁2𝑂 ― 𝑁

𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑔 𝑁2𝑂 ― 𝑁

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.6. Hydrocarbons 2.7. Nitrogen oxide 2.8. Carbon monoxide 2.9. Particulates (b2.5𝜇m) 3. From electricity (kwh) to air

0.0000000231 0.00031214 0.00004415 0.00000126

0.0000785 1.06 0.15 0.107 2.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

×

(

)𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 [𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟

𝑘𝑤ℎ 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒

× 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟]

(12) 3.1. Sulfur dioxide 3.2. Ammonia

0.0005524 0.0000020

0.0027 0.00001

3.3. Carbon dioxide 3.4. Nitrogen oxide 4. From chemicals (kg) to soil

0.1185467 0.0002473

0.58 0.00121

4.1. Treflan 4.2. Metalaxil 1 4.3.Diazinon 4.4. Toupaz 5. From human labor (manh) to air 5.1. Carbon dioxide

0.000123 0.000246 0.000123 0.000123

0.2 0.4 0.55 0.2

0.219775

0.7

2.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

×

(

)[𝑃𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑘𝑔 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒

× 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟]

(13)

2.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

×

(

)[𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑚𝑎𝑛 ― ℎ 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒

(14) × 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟] 199 200

2.4.2.2. Transportation

201

Transportation of inputs such as fertilizer, pesticide and diesel fuel to vineyard and transportation

202

of produced grape from vineyard to raisin production workshop were included in system

203

boundary. Average distance between distribution center of inputs and vineyard was 15 km, while

204

the distance between vineyard and raisin production factory was obtained as 20 km. the

205

inventory data related to the transportation phase were obtained from Ecoinvent database [24].

206

2.4.2.3. Processing

207

Transportation of inputs including sodium hydroxide solution 50%, sulfur gas, natural gas,

208

electricity, water and processing machines is considered as indirect emissions (Table 2). Direct

209

emissions due to the consumed natural gas were obtained from multiplying the consumed

210

amount of this input by related emission factor [25]. The emissions related to electricity

211

consumption and labor were estimated for 500-gram raisin packages.

212

Table 2. Life cycle inventory analysis for direct and indirect emissions in raisin production Inputs/ outputs(Unit)

Average value (Unit/

Emission factors (kg

10

Equation

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

500g raisins) 0.5

A. Yield (kg) B. Indirect emissions 1. equipment and machinery (kg) 2. Electricity (kwh) 3. Natural gas (m3) 4. Water (m3) 5. Sodium hydroxide 50% 6. Sulfur dioxide (kg) C. Direct emissions 1. From natural gas (m3) to air

unit-1)

0.010872 0.016667 0.000357 0.001005 0.005714 0.005238

(

𝑚3

)[𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

1 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

× 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛 × 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟]

(15) 1.1. Carbon dioxide 1.2. Dinitrogen monoxide 1.3.Methane 2. From electricity (kwh) to air

0.00004756 0.00000001 0.00002835

2.1. Sulfur dioxide 2.2. Ammonia 2.3. Carbon dioxide 2.4. Nitrogen oxide 3. From human labor (manh) to air 3.1. Carbon dioxide

0.00004544 0.00000016 0.00966778 0.00002015

0.133 0.000007 0.0026

(

)[𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑘𝑤ℎ 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

× 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛 × 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟] 0.0027 0.00001 0.58 0.00121

(

)[𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑚𝑎𝑛 ― ℎ 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛

× 0.5 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛 × 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟] 0.00352

0.7

213 214

2.4.2.4. Packaging

215

In this stage, produced raisin is treated with coconut oil and after removing the tail, it is

216

packaged in 500-gram plastic packages. These packages were put in cartons in the number of

217

either 10 or 20. Emissions related to the coconut oil, plastic, carton, adhesive tape, labor and

218

electricity were considered as indirect emissions and the emissions caused by electricity and

219

labor were considered as direct emissions.

220

Table 3. Life cycle inventory analysis for direct and indirect emissions in raisin packaging Inputs/ outputs(Unit)

Average value (Unit/ 500g raisins) 0.5

A. Yield (kg) B. Indirect emissions 1. equipment and machinery (kg) 2. Electricity (kwh) 3. carton box

0.00277 0.00428 0.01904

11

Emission factors (kg unit-1)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. Adhesive tape 5. Nylon 6. Coconut oil C. Direct emissions 1. From electricity (kwh) to air 1.1. Sulfur dioxide 1.2. Ammonia 1.3. Carbon dioxide 1.4. Nitrogen oxide 2. From human labor (man-h) to air 2.1. Carbon dioxide

0.00023 0.00166 0.02381

0.00001157 0.00000004 0.00248571 0.00000519

0.0027 0.00001 0.58 0.00121

0.00234748

0.7

221 222

2.4.3. Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation

223

In the third stage of LCA, emissions related to the vineyard, transportation, processing and

224

packaging phases were imported to Simapro V.8.03.14 and by using CML2 baseline 2000

225

modeling approach, 10 environmental indices including abiotic depletion (AD), acidification

226

(AC), eutrophication (EP), global warming (GW), ozone layer depletion (OLD), human toxicity

227

(HT), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity (FE), marine aquatic ecotoxicity (ME), terrestrial

228

ecotoxicity (TE) and photochemical oxidation (PO) were examined and compared. Each

229

individual environmental index has its specific amount in different stages of raisin production

230

based on allocated FU. This method of calculation is called classification (grouping) [20].

231

Interpretation of results is the fourth stage in the LCA study. In this stage, all obtained results are

232

investigated for concluding and providing solutions.

233

3. Results and Discussions

234

3.1. Analysis of energy flow

235

The amount and the share of each individual input for grape production in vineyard and raisin

236

production in processing workshop for specified FU have been tabulated in Table 4. Energy

237

related to input transportation from distribution center to processing workshop was included in

238

vineyard boundary and the energy related to input transportation to processing workshop was

239

included in workshop boundary. Based on specified FU, total energy input in vineyard and

240

processing workshop was 8.7 and 32.7, respectively, while the total energy output was 22.9 and

241

29.5, respectively. The contribution of electricity, chemical fertilizer, water and FYM to the total

242

input energy were 28%, 19%, 15%, 14% and 13%, respectively. The inefficiency of irrigation 12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

243

systems, old electrical motors and lack of awareness of manufacturers about required water

244

volume and flow rate were identified as the major reasons for indiscriminate use of electricity for

245

irrigation in the region. Chemical fertilizers used in the studied vineyards were nitrogen,

246

phosphate, potassium and sulfur which nitrogen fertilizer was the major fertilizer with the share

247

of 72% compared to other fertilizers. Cultivating the FYM in vineyards and conducting applied

248

researches to determine the required nutrients in different growth stages can be considered as the

249

alternatives for reducing the chemical fertilizers and FYM. In a study that aimed to investigate

250

energy consumption in Malayer County results revealed that chemical fertilizers, electricity and

251

FYM had the highest contribution to consumed energy with the share of 37%, 19% and 18%,

252

respectively [11]. Also in grape production in West Azerbaijan Province, nitrogen fertilizer and

253

irrigated water were the major contributors to energy consumption with the share of 35.6% and

254

21.81%, respectively [11]. In Shahriar County, nitrogen fertilizer, FYM and irrigation were

255

identified as the main workshop of energy consumption with the contribution of 35%, 17% and

256

11% [14]. Total output energy of vineyard is considered as the input energy of grape in raisin

257

production workshop that devoted 90% of total input energy. The share of other inputs for

258

providing 500-gram packages is inserted in brackets. The comparison of energy ratio (ER) index

259

between vineyard and processing workshop suggests the higher energy efficiency in the

260

vineyard. In other words, ER index was calculated as 3.38 and 0.70 in vineyard and processing

261

workshop, respectively. In similar studies for grape production, ER was reported 5.10 in Turkey

262

[30], 6.38 in Shahriar Province [14], 4.95 in Malayer County [11] and 5.47 in Urmia [15]. Based

263

on the results obtained from present study, ER index in grape production is lower than ER

264

reported in abovementioned studies. Given high grape yield in study area, low ER index can be

265

attributed to inefficiency in consuming inputs in vineyard. Energy Intensity (EI) index shows that

266

for producing a 500-gram raisin package, energy consumption for processing workshop and

267

vineyard is 65.41 MJ and 3.48, respectively. It can be attributed to high grape consumption per

268

produced raisin. By improving the grape drying operation and using machines and equipment

269

with higher efficiency in sieving section, raisin production can be increased as well as improving

270

the quality of produced raisin.

271

Table 4. Energy of inputs and output with their equivalent energy in raisin production (per 500g raisins). Items (Unit) Energy equivalent vineyard workshop References -1 (MJunit ) (MJ/ 500 g raisins) (MJ/ 500 g raisins) (Share %) (Share %) 13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A. Inputs energy 1. Human labor (h) 2. Electricity (kwh) 3. Machinery and equipment (h) 4. Water (m3) 5. Transport (t.km) 6. Diesel Fuel (L) 7. Chemical fertilizers (kg) 7.1. Nitrogen 7.2. Phosphate 7.3. Potassium 7.4. Sulfur 8. FYM (kg) 9. Chemicals (kg) 9.1. Insecticides 9.2. Fungicides 10. Grape (kg) 11. Sodium hydroxide 50% (kg) 12. Sulfur dioxide (kg) 13. Natural gas (m3) 14. Carton box (kg) 15. Adhesive tape (kg) 16. Nylon (kg) 17. Coconut oil (kg) B. Output Energy 1. Grape yield (kg) 2. Raisin yield (kg) C. Energy indices 1. ER 2.EP (500 g raisins / MJ) 3. SE (MJ/ 500 g raisins)

1.96 11.93

8.7028 0.2314 (2.65%) 2.43 (28.01%)

32.7073 0.0153 (0.06%) 0.2499 (0.76%)

[6] [11]

62.7

0.2887 (3.31%)

1.2241 (3.74%)

[26]

1.02 4 47.8

1.2954 (14.88%) 0.2560 (2.94%) 1.1957 (13.73%) 1.6643 (19.12%)

0.0010 (0.00%) 0.2089 (0.63%)

[11]

78.1 17.4 13.7 1.12 0.3

1.1957 0.2519 0.2012 0.0153 1.2223 (14.04%) 0.1100 (1.26%) 0.0204 0.0895

[26] [6]

[27] [27] [27] [28] [26]

29.5000 (90.19%) 0.1135 (0.34%)

[29] [29] [30] [31]

1.12

0.0058 (0.01%)

[26]

49.5 17.98 50 90 36.2

0.0176 (0.05%) 0.3424 (1.04%) 0.1500 (0.45%) 0.8619 (2.63%)

[32] [26] [26] [33] [26]

22.9000

[30] [26]

101.2 216 11.8 19.87

11.8 45.8

29.5000 3.38 0.2872

0.70 0.0152

3.4811

65.4147

272 273

3.2. Analysis of environmental indices

274

The amount and share of environmental indices related to vineyard, transportation, processing

275

and packaging phases are presented in Table 5 and Fig. 4. Based on the results, GW potential

276

was calculated as 4.258 kg CO2 eq. for specified FU (500 g of packaged raisin). Contribution of

277

inputs used in vineyard to GW index was 95% of all emissions (4.060 kg CO2 eq.). Emissions

278

related to vineyard were higher than other phases in all other environmental indices which can be 14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

279

attributed to more input consumption in vineyard. Comparison of emissions between processing

280

and packaging showed that all environmental indices were higher in packaging part except OLD

281

and TE with the share of 22.07% and 22.18%, respectively. In a study that was conducted on

282

cooking oil production from Canola oilseed in Isfahan Province, canola farm had highest

283

contribution to emitted pollutants in comparison with other phases (processing, packaging and

284

transportation). Their results showed that in GW index, the contribution of farm, packaging,

285

processing and transportation was 80%, 10%, 7% and 3%, respectively [34].

286

Table 5. Values of the environmental impact in raisin production (per 500g raisins).

Impact categories AD AC EUP GW OLD HT FE ME TE PO

Units

Vineyard

Processing

Packaging

Transport

Total

kg Sb eq. kg SO2 eq. kg PO-3 4 eq. kg CO2 eq. kg CFC11 eq. kg 1,4-DB eq. kg 1,4-DB eq. kg 1,4-DB eq. kg 1,4-DB eq. kg C2H4 eq.

0.001613 0.002504 0.002773 4.060736 0.00000003 0.170078 0.116987 138.3745 0.002036 0.000183

0.000441 0.000401 0.000128 0.067102 0.0000001 0.163494 0.048243 80.7784 0.000729 0.000022

0.000973 0.000691 0.000264 0.128166 0.000000006 0.175855 0.065166 111.5414 0.000516 0.000046

0.000020 0.000010 0.000002 0.002853 0.0000000005 0.001385 0.000374 0.606371 0.000005 0.0000004

0.003040 0.003606 0.003116 4.258856 0.00000005 0.510813 0.230770 331.3007 0.003287 0.000253

100

Environmental impacts (%)

90 80 70 60

Vineyard

50

Processing

40

Packaging

30

Transport

20 10 0

287 288 289

AD

AC

EUP

GW

OLD

HT

FE

ME

TE

PO

Fig.4. Percentage contributions of the different processes (in %) to each impact categories

290

Direct and indirect emissions related to inputs in vineyard, transportation, processing and

291

packaging phases in raisin production have been tabulated in Fig. 5. In terms of input

292

consumption, vineyard is indicated as hotspot in GW, EUP and TE with the share of 90%, 74% 15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

293

and 35%, respectively. The contribution of vineyard indirect emissions to total emissions in

294

raisin production was the highest in a range of 36% for FE to 70% for PO except HT. In HT

295

index, packaging and processing stages had highest environmental burdens with the share of

296

34% and 32%, respectively. The contribution of each input to environmental impacts in whole

297

raisin production cycle is presented in Table 6.

100%

Direct & indirect emissionsd (%)

90% 80%

Indirect, packaging

70%

Direct, packaging

60%

Indirect, processing

50%

Direct, processing Indirect, transport

40%

Direct, transport

30%

Indirect, vineyard

20%

Direct, vineyard

10% 0%

AD

AC

EUP

GW

OLD

HT

FE

ME

TE

PO

298 299 300 301 302

Based on the results, FYM production was identified as the major contributor to PO (68%), FE

303

(52%), AD (50%), ME (43%) and HT (42%) indices. Direct emissions of inputs especially FYM,

304

including Phosphorous, NH3, N2O and Nitrate have highest environmental consequences in GW

305

(94%), EUP (85%) and TE (55%) indices. Pollutants emitted by pesticide production have major

306

effect on AD index (60%). So indiscriminate use of FYM as an environmental hotspot has

307

reduced the environmental sustainability of raisin production in the study area. In a study that

308

was conducted by Mohseni et al., indirect emissions of FYM production were identified as

309

hotspot in AD (54%), GW (50%), OLD (35%), ME (53%), FE (52%) and PO (42%) indices in

310

grape production in Arak County [6]. In processing stage, depreciated weight of machines and

311

equipment including sieving, washing and sand sieving machine was considered during raisin

312

production in workshop. Accordingly, this input was the major contributor to all indices except

313

OLD with the contribution range of 38% for AC index to 92% for HT and TE indices. The

Fig. 5. Percentage contribution direct and indirect emissions for environmental impact categories in raisin production in entire life cycle.

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

314

emissions of this input can be reduced through timely lubrication of machines, substitution of

315

worn parts and applying skilled operators. In packaging phase, results showed that the indirect

316

emissions of adhesive tape production have the highest environmental impacts in all indices, so

317

that its contribution to OLD index was 68%. Coconut oil that is used for polishing and increasing

318

the resistance of raisin to heat and moisture before packaging, was identified as second most

319

pollutant input in all environmental indices except HT. Menfredi and Vignali reported that

320

indirect emissions of glass packages production used in tomato paste packaging are considerable

321

and is identified as environmental hotspot [35].

322

Based on the results, emissions caused by input production and consumption in vineyard and

323

packaging phase should be reduced in raisin production cycle. Since the FYM was identified as

324

environmental hotspot in vineyard, solutions such as soil analysis and determining the amount of

325

elements in soil before fertilizing, determining the actual required fertilizer for soil specially

326

FYM can be considered. It is worthy to note that, in addition to proper management of fertilizers,

327

the type of their compounds should be considered. Fertilizers compounds can be crucial in some

328

circumstances, so that these compounds can cause considerable environmental burdens even in

329

low level of fertilizer consumption. So considering both the amount of used fertilizer and

330

changing the fertilizer type can be the alternatives to reduce the environmental consequences. It

331

is necessary to hold training courses for grape growers in Dena County to inform them about

332

proper use and management of inputs specially fertilizers and other agrochemical and about

333

environmental consequences due to indiscriminate use of them. For packaging part, using

334

environment-friendly packages instead of conventional plastic packages in Iranian raisin

335

production industry can be considered as an alternative.

336

Table 6. Hotspots of vineyard, processing and packaging in raisin production.

Impact categories AD AC

Vineyard FYM (50%), electricity (17%)

EUP

Direct emissions (40%), FYM (30%) Direct emissions (85%)

GW

Direct emissions (94%)

OLD

Pesticides (60%), FYM (18%)

HT

FYM (42%), spray machinery

Processing

Packaging

Machinery and equipment (55%), electricity (25%) Machinery and equipment (38%), electricity (30%) Machinery and equipment (78%), Machinery and equipment (37%), sodium hydroxide (18%) Sodium hydroxide (45%), sulfur dioxide (42%) Machinery and equipment

Adhesive tape (43%), coconut oil (20%) Adhesive tape (43%), coconut oil (25%) Adhesive tape (32%), coconut oil (38%) Adhesive tape (40%), coconut oil (24%)

17

Adhesive tape (68%) Adhesive tape (47%), Machinery and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

FE ME TE PO

(38%) FYM (43%), (29%)

direct

emissions

FYM (52%), spray machinery (25%) Direct emissions (55%), FYM (22%) FYM (68%)

(92%) Machinery and equipment (83%) Machinery and equipment (82%) Machinery and equipment (92%) Machinery and equipment (57%), electricity (25%)

equipment (37%) Adhesive tape (44%), coconut oil (21%), Machinery and equipment (20%) Adhesive tape (55%), coconut oil (16%), carton box (15%) Adhesive tape (34%), coconut oil (25%) Adhesive tape (50%), coconut oil (22%)

337 338

4. Conclusion

339

The present study aimed to investigate the energy flow and environmental indices in whole cycle

340

of raisin production from grape production in vineyard to packaging the final product. The

341

required data were collected from grape growers of Dena County and raising production

342

workshop in Yasuj County. FU was determined as 500 g packaged raisin and based on that the

343

total energy input and energy index was calculated as 8.70 MJ and 3.38 for vineyard and 32.7 MJ

344

and 0.70 for the workshop, respectively. The major contributors to total vineyard energy input

345

were electricity and chemical fertilizer with the contribution of 28% and 19%, respectively,

346

while the grape with the share of 90% in total workshop energy input was identified as the most

347

energy-intensive input. Results obtained from environmental analysis showed that the input

348

consumption in vineyard emitted more pollutants than processing and transportation phases.

349

FYM, Machines and equipment and adhesive tape were identified as environmental hotspots in

350

vineyard, workshop and packaging phases, respectively. The electricity used in vineyards is

351

produced in natural gas power plants and this input can be reduced through applying some

352

measures such as using more efficient electrical motors and informing the growers about the

353

importance of knowing the actual need for water in different phases of grape production.

354

Applying biologic methods, FYM and conducting applied researches to determine the plant need

355

for nutrients in different growth stages can cause to reduce fertilizer production emissions

356

especially FYM. Policymakers should encourage the producers to use new and environment-

357

friendly packaging systems. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide some restrictive rules for

358

environmental emissions related to the packaging phase.

359 360 361

Acknowledgment 18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

362 363 364

The financial support provided by the Khuzestan Agricultural sciences and natural resources University, Iran, is duly acknowledged.

365

References

366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407

[1] Tzilivakis J, D. Warner M, May K, Lewis K. An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the UK. Agric Syst 2005; 85: 101-19. [2] Marras S, Masia S, Duce P, Spano D, Sirca C. Carbon footprint assessment on a mature vineyard. Agric For Meteorol 2015; 214: 350-56. [3] Ferrari AM, Pini M, Sassi D, Zerazion E, Neri P. Effects of grape quality on the environmental profile of an Italian vineyard for Lambrusco red wine production. J Clean Prod 2018; 172: 3760-69. [4] Rebitzer GT, Ekvall R, Frischknecht D, Hunkeler G, Norris T, Rydberg W, P. Schmidt S, Suh BP, Pennington DW. Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ international 2004; 30: 701-20. [5] Soheili-Fard F, Kouchaki-Penchah H, Ghasemi Nejad Raini M, Chen G. Cradle to grave environmental-economic analysis of tea life cycle in Iran. J Clean Prod 2018; xxx [In press]. [6] Mohseni P, Borghei AM, Khanali, M. Application of data envelopment analysis approach to reduce environmental impacts and increase energy efficiency in grape production. J Clean Prod 2018; 197(1): 937-47. [7] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018. . [8] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2016. . [9] Anonymous. Annual agricultural statistics of Kohgiluyeh Va Boyerahmad province in Iran, Available from: kb-agri-jahad.ir/kb; 2017 [In Persian]. [10]Anonymous. A review of the amount of food calories, Available from: www.bruweb.blogfa.com; 2012 [In Persian]. [11] Rajabi Hamedani S, Keyhani A, Alimardani R. Energy use patterns and econometric models of grape production in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 2011, 36(11): 6345-51. [12] Vázquez-Rowe I, Villanueva-Rey P, Iribarren D, Moreira M T, Feijoo G. Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J Clean Prod 2012; 27: 92-102. [13] Khoshroo A, Mulwa R, Emrouznejad A, Arabi B. A non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis approach for improving energy efficiency of grape production. Energy 2013; 63: 189-94. [14] Karimi M, Moghaddam H. On-farm energy flow in grape orchards. J Saudi Society of Agric Sci 2016; 17(2): 191-94. [15] Mardani A, Taghavifar H. An overview on energy inputs and environmental emissions of grape production in West Azerbayjan of Iran. Renew Sust Energy Rew 2016; 54: 918-24. [16] Point E, Tyedmers P, Naugler C. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J Clean Prod 2017; 27, 11-20. [17] Malinds J M. Biology of the vine. Translated by Almasi P, Gholami M, Asna Ashari M. University of Bo Ali Sina Hamedan, Iran 2007. [18] Anonymous. Statistical Yearbook of Kohgiluyeh Va Boyerahmad province in Iran, Available from: amar.org.ir/ English/Iran-Statistical-Yearbook; 2018 [In Persian]. [19] Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques, third ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. USA, 1999. [20] ISO 14040. Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2006; 11(2): 36 p. [21] ISO 14044 . Environmental management–life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Eur Comm Stand Int Organ Stand 2006. 19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433

[22] IPCC. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan (www.ipccnggip.iges.or), 2006. [23] Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Sharifi M, Hosseinpour S, Shah A.Combined application of Life Cycle Assessment and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System for modeling energy and environmental emissions of oilseed production. Renew Sust Energy Rew 2017: 78; 807–20. [24] Anonymous. Database EcoInvent version 2, Available from: www.ecoinvent.org; 2010. [25] EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission factor documentation for AP-42 Section 1.4Natural gas combustion, Technical support division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/bgdocs/b01s04.pdf, 1998. [26] Kitani, O. Energy and biomass engineering, CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering. ASAE Publications, St Joseph, MI., 1999. [27] Elhami B, Khanali M, Akram A. Combined application of Artificial Neural Networks and life cycle assessment in lentil farming in Iran. Inform Process in Agric 2017; 4(2): 18-32. [28] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Abdi R, Rafiee S, Ghasemi-Mobtaker H. Optimization of energy required and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for orange producers using data envelopment analysis approach. J Clean Prod 2014; 65: 311-17. [29] Zangeneh M, Omid M, Akram A. Assessment of agricultural mechanization status of potato production by means of Artificial Neural Network model. Aust J Crop Sci 2010; 4: 372-77. [30] Ozkan B, Karadeniz CF. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy 2007; 32: 1500–04. [31] Anoop Singh DP, Stig Irving Olsen. Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Sources, 2013. [32] Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S, Mousazadeh H. Application of multi-layer adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for estimation of greenhouse strawberry yield. Measurement 2014; 47: 903–10. [33] Canakci A, Akinci I. Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy 2006; 31: 1243-56.

434 435 436 437

[34] Khanali M, Mousavi SA, Sharifi M, Keyhani Nasab F, Chau KW. Life cycle assessment of canola edible oil production in Iran: a case study in Isfahan Province. J Clean Prod 2018; 196: 714- 25. [35] Manfredi M, Vignali G. Life cycle assessment of a packaged tomato puree: a comparison of environmental impacts produced by different life cycle phases. J Clean Prod 2014; 73: 275-84.

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights 

The total input energy for vineyard and processing plant was calculated as 8.70 and 32.7 MJ.



The contribution of electricity energy was calculated as 28% of energy input total.



FYM was indicated as major contributor to emissions in vineyard sector.



Machines were indicated as major contributor to emissions in processing plant.