Advertisement

Comparison of different tomato puree production phases from an environmental point of view

  • Saeid Shahvarooghi Farahani
  • Farshad SoheilifardEmail author
  • Mahmoud Ghasemi Nejad Raini
  • Delnia Kokei
LCA FOR AGRICULTURE
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Agro-food systems are involved with considerable environmental impacts. Tomato as an important vegetable crop is processed into some products such as puree, ketchup, and paste. This study aimed to investigate the environmental impacts of tomato puree production considering its entire life cycle, including tomato cultivation, processing, packaging, and transportation, to identify the hotspots and potential improvements for each stage to reduce environmental burdens.

Methods

The primary data were collected from the processing plant located in Urmia County, Iran, and 28 tomato growers which provide tomato to processing plant using a face-to-face questionnaire. The source for secondary data was the Ecoinvent, LCA Food DK, and IDMAT 2001 databases. The functional unit was considered as 500 g tomato puree packaged in a steel can with a plastic cap. The environmental impacts were investigated using the CML 2 baseline method.

Results and discussions

Results showed that packaging is the most important contributor to all impact categories except acidification (AC) and eutrophication (EP) in which tomato cultivation was indicated as the hotspot. In the cultivation phase, electricity and N-based fertilizers were indicated as the major contributors to most impact categories. Diesel fuel and natural gas were the hotspots in the processing phase.

Conclusions

Based on the results, packaging and cultivation phases have enough potential to reduce environmental impacts during puree production. It can be realized through applying materials that are involved with negligible environmental burdens during their production for packaging and improving irrigation systems for reducing electricity as a major hotspot in cultivation phases. Also, soil analysis would be helpful to determine the amounts and types of required fertilizers.

Keywords

CML baseline Environmental impacts Life cycle assessment Packaging Processing Tomato puree 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the company’s personnel for cooperation and giving the data.

Funding Information

The authors would like to thank the Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resource University of Khuzestan for financial support.

References

  1. Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1998) Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case study. J Clean Prod 6(3):277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2017) FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC; <http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/>
  3. Bacenetti J, Duca D, Negri M, Fusi A, Fiala M (2015) Mitigation strategies in the agro-food sector: the anaerobic digestion of tomato puree by-products. An Italian case study. Sci Total Environ 526:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boguski TK, Hunt RG, Cholakis JM, Franklin WE (1996) LCA methodology. In: Curran MA (ed) environmental life-cycle assessment. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data, pp 15-33Google Scholar
  5. Bolliger R, Bauer C (2007) Wasserkraft. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen (Ecoinvent report no. 6). Swiss Centre for LCI, Dübendorf and Villigen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Braschkat J, Patyk A, Quirin M, Reinhardt GA (2004) Life cycle assessment of bread production-a comparison of eight different scenarios. DIAS report, 9Google Scholar
  7. Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Ling LC, Turnbaugh JG (1990) Quantitative and sensory studies on tomato paste volatiles. J Agric Food Chem 38(1):336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calderón LA, Iglesias L, Laca A, Herrero M, Diaz M (2010) The utility of life cycle assessment in the ready meal food industry. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1196–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of protected crops: an Italian case study. J Clean Prod 28:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cichorowski G, Joa B, Hottenroth H, Schmidt M (2015) Scenario analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Darjeeling tea. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(4):426–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Klein C, Novoa RSA, Ogle S, Smith KA, Rochette P, Wirth TC, McConkey BG, Mosier A, Rypdal K, Walsh M (2006) N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), JapanGoogle Scholar
  12. Dechmi F, Playán E, Faci JM, Tejero M (2003a) Analysis of an irrigation district in northeastern Spain: I: characterisation and water use assessment. Agric Water Manag 61:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dechmi F, Playán E, Faci JM, Tejero M, Bercero A (2003b) Analysis of an irrigation district in northeastern Spain: II. Irrigation evaluation, simulation and scheduling. Agric Water Manag 61:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Strazza C, Del Borghi M (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EPA-Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Emission factor documentation for AP-42 Section 1.4-Natural 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
  16. European Commission (2011) Roadmap to a resource efficient EuropeGoogle Scholar
  17. Faist Emmenegger M, Heck T, Jungbluth N (2007) Erdgas. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen (Ecoinvent report no. 6). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf and Villigen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Farahani SS, Asoodar M (2017) Life cycle environmental impacts of bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses in Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:22547–22556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, de Koning KRA, Wegener Sleeswijk A (2001) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996) In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Lim B, Treanton K, Mamaty I, Bonduki Y, Griggs DJ, Callender BA (eds) Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC/OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management: life cycle assessment: principles and framework. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  23. Khanali M, Shahvarooghi Farahani S, Shojaei H, Elhami B (2017) Life cycle environmental impacts of saffron production in Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(5):4812–4821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S, Omid M, Mousazadeh H, Clark S (2014) Environmental impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. J Clean Prod 73:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kouchaki-Penchah H, Sharifi M, Mousazadeh H, Zarea-Hosseinabadi H, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A (2016) Gate to gate life cycle assessment of flat pressed particleboard production in Islamic Republic of Iran. J Clean Prod 112:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lecina S, Playán E, Isidoro D, Dechmi F, Causape J, Faci JM (2005) Irrigation evaluation and simulation at the irrigation district V of Bardenas (Spain). Agric Water Manag 73(3):223–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manfredi M, Vignali G (2014) Life cycle assessment of a packaged tomato puree: a comparison of environmental impacts produced by different life cycle phases. J Clean Prod 73:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Chau KW (2019) Assessment of optimized pattern in milling factories of rice production based on energy, environmental and economic objectives. Energy 169:1259–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nemecek T, Kägi T, Blaser S (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Final report Ecoinvent v2.0 no.15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  30. Nikkhah A, Emadi B, Firouzi S (2015) F sustain. Energy Technol Assess 12:10–14Google Scholar
  31. Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Clean Prod 28:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pishgar-Komleh SH, Akram A, Keyhani A, Raei M, Elshout PMF, Huijbregts MAJ, van Zelm R (2017) Variability in the carbon footprint of open-field tomato production in Iran-a case study of Alborz and East-Azerbaijan provinces. J Clean Prod 142:1510–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Playán E, Slatni A, Castillo R, Faci JM (2000) A case study for irrigation modernisation: II scenario analysis. Agric Water Manag 42:335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rajaeifar MA, Akram A, Ghobadian B, Rafiee S, Heidari MD (2014) Energy-economic life cycle assessment (LCA) and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of olive oil production in Iran. Energy 66:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romero-Gámez M, Suárez-Rey EM, Antón A, Castilla N, Soriano T (2012) Environmental impact of screenhouse and open-field cultivation using a life cycle analysis: the case study of green bean production. J Clean Prod 28:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roy P, Nei D, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Orikasa T, Shiina T (2008) Life cycle inventory analysis of fresh tomato distribution systems in Japan considering the quality aspect. J Food Eng 86(2):225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Soheili-Fard F, Kouchaki-Penchah H, Raini MGN, Chen G (2018) Cradle to grave environmental-economic analysis of tea life cycle in Iran. J Clean Prod 196:953–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verones F, Pfister S, Van-Zelm R, Hellweg S (2016) Biodiversity impacts from water consumption on a global scale for use in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(8):1247–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Water Assessment Programme (2009) The United Nations world water development report 3: water in a changing world. UNESCO and London: Earthscan, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. Yahyaoui I, Tadeo F, Segatto MV (2016) Energy and water management for drip-irrigation of tomatoes in a semi-arid district. Agric Water Manag 183:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zarei MJ, Kazemi N, Marzban A (2017) Life cycle environmental impacts of cucumber and tomato production in open-field and greenhouse. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.07.001

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saeid Shahvarooghi Farahani
    • 1
  • Farshad Soheilifard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mahmoud Ghasemi Nejad Raini
    • 1
  • Delnia Kokei
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development, Department of Agricultural Machinery EngineeringKhuzestan Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources UniversityMollasaniIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and TechnologyUniversity of TehranKarajIran

Personalised recommendations