pp 1-17 | Cite as

Life Cycle Assessment of Seaweed Cultivation Systems

  • Michele SeghettaEmail author
  • Pietro Goglio
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series


Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a holistic methodology that identifies the impacts of a production system on the environment. The results of an LCA are used to identify which processes can be improved to minimize impacts and optimize production.

LCA is composed of four phases: (1) goal and scope definition, (2) life cycle inventory analysis, (3) life cycle impact assessment, and (4) interpretation.

The goal and scope define the purpose of the analysis; describe the system and its function, establish a functional unit to collect data and present results, set the system boundaries, and explain the assumptions made and data quality requirements. Life cycle inventory analysis is the collection, processing and organization of data. Life cycle impact assessment associates the results from the inventory phase to one or multiple impacts on environment or human health. The interpretation evaluates the outcome of each phase of the analysis. In this phase the practitioner decides whether it is necessary to amend other phases, e.g., collection of more data or adjustments of goal of the analysis. In the interpretation, the practitioner draws conclusions, exposes the limitations, and provides recommendations to the readers.

The quality of LCA of seaweed production and conversion is based on data availability and detail level. Performing an LCA at the initial stage of seaweed production in Europe is an advantage: the recommended design improvements can be implemented without significant economic investments. The quality of LCA will keep improving with the increase of scientific publications, data sharing, and public reports.


Climate change Environmental impacts Life cycle assessment Macroalgae Seaweed 


  1. 1.
    BIM (2014) The European market for sea vegetables. Bord Iascaigh MharaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zemke-White WL, Ohno M (1999) World seaweed utilisation: an end-of-century summary. J Appl Phycol 11:369–376Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    FAO (2014) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: opportunities and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buschmann AH, Camus C, Infante J, Neori A, Israel Á, Hernández-González MC, Pereda SV, Gomez-Pinchetti JL, Golberg A, Tadmor-Shalev N, Critchley AT (2017) Seaweed production: overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity. Eur J Phycol 52:391–406. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jung KA, Lim S-R, Kim Y, Park JM (2013) Potentials of macroalgae as feedstocks for biorefinery. Bioresour Technol 135:182–190. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noble B, Nwanekezie K (2017) Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: principles, approaches and research directions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:165–173. Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission (2003) Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment. European Commission—Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection European Chemicals Bureau (ECB), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. BS EN ISO 14044:2006+A1:2018Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cappelli A, Gigli E, Romagnoli F, Simoni S, Blumberga D, Palerno M, Guerriero E (2015) Co-digestion of macroalgae for biogas production: an LCA-based environmental evaluation. Energy Procedia 72:3–10. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cappelli A, Gigli E, Muzi L, Renda R, Simoni S (2010) Energetic and environmental impacts related to transport and assembling processes in a biogas production plant from marine macroalgae (FP7 Project BioWALK4Biofuels). Sci J Riga Tech Univ Environ Clim Technol 5:16–27. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czyrnek-Delêtre MM, Rocca S, Agostini A, Giuntoli J, Murphy JD (2017) Life cycle assessment of seaweed biomethane, generated from seaweed sourced from integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in temperate oceanic climates. Appl Energy 196:34–50. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giwa A (2017) Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of biogas production from marine algae and cattle manure biorefineries. Bioresour Technol 244:1470–1479. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung KA, Lim S-R, Kim Y, Park JM (2017) Opportunity and challenge of seaweed bioethanol based on life cycle CO2 assessment. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 36:200–207. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langlois J, Sassi J-F, Jard G, Steyer J-P, Delgenes J-P, Hélias A (2012) Life cycle assessment of biomethane from offshore-cultivated seaweed. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 6:387–404. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pilicka I, Blumberga D, Romagnoli F (2011) Life cycle assessment of biogas production from marine macroalgae: a latvian scenario. Sci J Riga Tech Univ Environ Clim Technol 6:69–78. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aitken D, Bulboa C, Godoy-Faundez A, Turrion-Gomez JL, Antizar-Ladislao B (2014) Life cycle assessment of macroalgae cultivation and processing for biofuel production. J Clean Prod 75:45–56. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alvarado-Morales M, Boldrin A, Karakashev DB, Holdt SL, Angelidaki I, Astrup T (2013) Life cycle assessment of biofuel production from brown seaweed in Nordic conditions. Bioresour Technol 129:92–99. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seghetta M, Hou X, Bastianoni S, Bjerre A-B, Thomsen M (2016) Life cycle assessment of macroalgal biorefinery for the production of ethanol, proteins and fertilizers—a step towards a regenerative bioeconomy. J Clean Prod 137:1158–1169. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen A (1993) Present and future needs for algae and algal products. Hydrobiologia 260/261:15–23Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bilan MI, Grachev AA, Shashkov AS, Kelly M, Sanderson CJ, Nifantiev NE, Usov AI (2010) Further studies on the composition and structure of a fucoidan preparation from the brown alga Saccharina latissima. Carbohydr Res 345:2038–2047. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bichraoui-Draper N, Xu M, Miller SA, Guillaume B (2015) Agent-based life cycle assessment for switchgrass-based bioenergy systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 103:171–178. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller SA, Moysey S, Sharp B, Alfaro J (2013) A stochastic approach to model dynamic systems in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17:352–362. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liska AJ, Yang HS, Bremer VR, Klopfenstein TJ, Walters DT, Erickson GE, Cassman KG (2009) Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol. J Ind Ecol 13:58–74. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shibasaki M, Fischer M, Barthel L (2007) Effects on life cycle assessment—scale up of processes. In: Takata S, Umeda Y (eds) Advances in life cycle engineering for sustainable manufacturing businesses. Springer, London, pp 377–381Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Organization for Standardization (2010) ISO 14025:2010 Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and proceduresGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    PAS (2011) PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Oirschot R, Thomas J-BE, Gröndahl F, Fortuin KPJ, Brandenburg W, Potting J (2017) Explorative environmental life cycle assessment for system design of seaweed cultivation and drying. Algal Res 27:43–54. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goglio P, Brankatschk G, Knudsen MT, Williams AG, Nemecek T (2017) Addressing crop interactions within cropping systems in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(9). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nemecek T, Dubois D, Huguenin-Elie O, Gaillard G (2011) Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. Agr Syst 104:217–232. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Werner A, Dring M (2011) Aquaculture explained, cultivating Palmaria palmata. Bord Iascaigh MharaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bak UG, Mols-Mortensen A, Gregersen O (2018) Production method and cost of commercial-scale offshore cultivation of kelp in the Faroe Islands using multiple partial harvesting. Algal Res 33:36–47. Scholar
  34. 34.
    European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook general guide for life cycle assessment: detailed guidance. Publications Office, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Kleijn R, de Snoo GR (2012) Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems—a review of methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:304–313. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weidema B, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Rep 1(v3):169Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Durlinger B, Tyszler M, Scholten J, Broekema R, Blonk H (2014) Agri-footprint; a life cycle inventory database covering food and feed production and processing. San Francisco, USA, p 8Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Takano A, Winter S, Hughes M, Linkosalmi L (2014) Comparison of life cycle assessment databases: A case study on building assessment. Build Environ 79:20–30. Scholar
  39. 39.
    European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook framework and requirements for life cycle impact assessment models and indicators. Publications Office, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seghetta M, Romeo D, D’Este M, Alvarado-Morales M, Angelidaki I, Bastianoni S, Thomsen M (2017) Seaweed as innovative feedstock for energy and feed—evaluating the impacts through a Life Cycle Assessment. J Clean Prod 150:1–15. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report 1 characterization. Minist Hous Spec Plan Environ 133Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guinée G (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment, operational guide to the ISO standards. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Zhang H, Takemura T (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodol Rep. Plotterweg 12, 3821BB Amersfoort, Netherlands, pp 144.
  45. 45.
    Seghetta M, Tørring D, Bruhn A, Thomsen M (2016) Bioextraction potential of seaweed in Denmark—an instrument for circular nutrient management. Sci Total Environ 563–564:513–529. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Langlois J, Fréon P, Steyer J-P, Delgenès J-P, Hélias A (2014) Sea-use impact category in life cycle assessment: state of the art and perspectives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:994–1006. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Taelman SE, De Meester S, Schaubroeck T, Sakshaug E, Alvarenga RAF, Dewulf J (2014) Accounting for the occupation of the marine environment as a natural resource in life cycle assessment: an exergy based approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 91:1–10. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abdou K, Aubin J, Romdhane MS, Le Loc’h F, Lasram FBR (2017) Environmental assessment of seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and seabream (Sparus aurata) farming from a life cycle perspective: a case study of a Tunisian aquaculture farm. Aquaculture 471:204–212. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE, Cederberg C, Herzog F, Vale J, Jeanneret P, Sarthou J-P, Friedel JK, Balázs K, Fjellstad W, Kainz M, Wolfrum S, Dennis P (2017) Characterization factors for land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment based on direct measures of plant species richness in European farmland in the ‘Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest’ biome. Sci Total Environ 580:358–366. Scholar
  50. 50.
    Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15. Scholar
  51. 51.
    Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Seghetta M, Marchi M, Thomsen M, Bjerre A-B, Bastianoni S (2016) Modelling biogenic carbon flow in a macroalgal biorefinery system. Algal Res 18:144–155. Scholar
  53. 53.
    European Parliament (2009) Directive 2004/39/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004. Off J Eur Union L 140/16:47Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus N, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones G, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Humbert S, Kӧllner T (2007) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Ecoinvent Rep 151Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mulder K, Hagens NJ (2008) Energy return on investment: toward a consistent framework. AMBIO J Hum Environ 37:74–79.[74:EROITA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chung I-K, Kang Y-H, Yarish C, George PK, Lee J-A (2002) Application of seaweed cultivation to the bioremediation of nutrient-rich effluent. ALGAE 17:187–194. Scholar
  57. 57.
    Quilliam RS, van Niekerk MA, Chadwick DR, Cross P, Hanley N, Jones DL, Vinten AJA, Willby N, Oliver DM (2015) Can macrophyte harvesting from eutrophic water close the loop on nutrient loss from agricultural land? J Environ Manage 152:210–217. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sudharsan S, Seedevi P, Ramasamy P, Subhapradha N, Vairamani S, Shanmugam A (2012) Heavy metal accumulation in seaweeds and sea grasses along southeast coast of India. J Chem Pharm Res 4:4240–4244Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171. Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schmidt JH (2008) System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA: outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:350–364. Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vázquez-Rowe I, Rege S, Marvuglia A, Thénie J, Haurie A, Benetto E (2013) Application of three independent consequential LCA approaches to the agricultural sector in Luxembourg. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1593–1604. Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dale BE, Kim S (2014) Can the predictions of consequential life cycle assessment be tested in the real world? Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation...”. J Ind Ecol 18:466–467. Scholar
  63. 63.
    Herrmann C, FitzGerald J, O’Shea R, Xia A, O’Kiely P, Murphy JD (2015) Ensiling of seaweed for a seaweed biofuel industry. Bioresour Technol 196:301–313. Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bruhn A, Tørring D, Thomsen M, Canal-Vergés P, Nielsen M, Rasmussen M, Eybye K, Larsen M, Balsby T, Petersen J (2016) Impact of environmental conditions on biomass yield, quality, and bio-mitigation capacity of Saccharina latissima. Aquac Environ Interact 8:619–636. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Water, Energy and EnvironmentCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK
  2. 2.Wageningen Economic ResearchWageningen University & Research, LeeuwenborchWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations