The economic and environmental assessment on production stage of quayside crane

  • Yunjie Liu
  • Qiang JinEmail author
  • Bo Wen
  • Zhibao HuoEmail author
  • Yuanhang Zhu
  • Minghai Zhang
  • Zhili Wang
  • Aidang Shan


With the acceleration of globalization, trade between countries has become more and more frequent; as a kind of commonly used heavy lifting equipment, the influence of the quayside crane on environment during the production stage has attracted wide attention. In this paper, the world’s largest quayside crane manufacturer was selected as the study object. The environmental load of five workshops (NC pre-treatment workshop, assembling workshop, sand milling workshop, painting workshop and steel structure workshop) involved in the quayside crane (QC) production stage was studied by using the ReCiPe model; the normalized values of the 14 overall pollutants in each workshop were 1248.64, 576.75, 214.27, 85.26 and 76.69, respectively. The results showed that the sand milling workshop was the biggest electricity consumer of all processes. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the environmental pollution load was the most sensitive to the electricity consumption; the scenario analysis indicated that with the proportion of China’s renewable resources in the process of electricity generation becoming larger and larger, in comparison with that of in 2015, up to 2050, the quantity of PM 2.5 generated during the production process of QC will drop from 832 to 408 kg (high-speed development)/342 kg (low-speed development), and it is expected that the China’s haze problem could be effectively curbed in the future. Finally, the research results of this article also pointed out the direction for the future technical innovation of the QC industry.

Graphical abstract


Quayside crane Production stage ReCiPe model LCIA Environmental assessment Clean energy 



This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (21476139). We would also like to acknowledge all of the enterprise and experts for their assistance in interviews and data collection. We also appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.


  1. Cederberg, C. (1998). Life cycle assessment of milk production: A comparison of conventional and organic farming. Göteborg, Sverige: SIK Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik.Google Scholar
  2. Chen, C., & Lam, J. S. L. (2018). Sustainability and interactivity between cities and ports: A two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 45, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheon, S., Maltz, A., & Dooley, K. (2017). The link between economic and environmental performance of the top 10 US ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cui, Q. (2017). Environmental efficiency measures for ports: An application of RAM-Tobit-RAM with undesirable outputs. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(5), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cui, X., Hong, J., & Gao, M. (2012). Environmental impact assessment of three coal-based electricity generation scenarios in China. Energy, 45, 952–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2014). Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—A study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 1409–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Editorial Committee of China Power Yearbook. (2015). China electric power yearbook 2014. Beijing: China Electrical Power Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fransoo, J. C., & Lee, C.-Y. (2013). The critical role of ocean container transport in global supply chain performance. Production and Operations Management, 22, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gharehgozli, A. H., Roy, D., & de Koster, R. (2016). Sea container terminals: New technologies and OR models. MEL, 18, 103–140.Google Scholar
  10. Goh, M., & Ling, C. (2003). Logistics development in China. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33, 886–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO, I. (2006). 14040: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
  12. Lardon, L., Helias, A., Sialve, B., Steyer, J.-P., & Bernard, O. (2009). Life-cycle assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae. Washington, DC: ACS Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li, M., & Zhang, L. (2014). Haze in China: Current and future challenges. Environmental Pollution, 189, 85–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., et al. (2004). Life cycle assessment: Part 1—Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30, 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ripa, M., Fiorentino, G., Giani, H., Clausen, A., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). Refuse recovered biomass fuel from municipal solid waste. A life cycle assessment. Applied Energy, 186, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. (2009). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schroeder, M. (2009). Utilizing the clean development mechanism for the deployment of renewable energies in China. Applied Energy, 86, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Sethi, M., & Shree, V. (2011). Life cycle assessment of buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 871–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council. (2016). The global share of ZPMC of China Communications Group is up to a record again. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.
  20. Su, S., Zhao, J., & Jianxin, H. (2015). Greenhouse gas emissions from power sector in China from 1990 to 2050. Advances in Climate Change Research, 11, 353–362.Google Scholar
  21. Wang, L., Notteboom, T., Lau, Y.-Y., & Ng, A. (2017). Functional differentiation and sustainability: A new stage of development in the Chinese container port system. Sustainability-Basel, 9, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wen, B., Jin, Q., Huang, H., Tandon, P., & Zhu, Y. (2017). Life cycle assessment of Quayside crane: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ZPMC brief introduction.
  24. ZPMC. (2019). Accessed 11 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yunjie Liu
    • 1
  • Qiang Jin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bo Wen
    • 1
  • Zhibao Huo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yuanhang Zhu
    • 3
  • Minghai Zhang
    • 3
  • Zhili Wang
    • 3
  • Aidang Shan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.College of Marine Ecology and EnvironmentShanghai Ocean UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.ShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations