Environmental implication of the production of non-centrifugal sugar in the Colombian Andean region

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3706817/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Environmental implication of the production of non-centrifugal sugar in the Colombian Andean region

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3706817/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Non-centrifugal sugar (Panela) is a natural sweet enhancer obtained from sugarcane. In this process, waste from the agricultural industry is disposed of incorrectly, fossil fuels are used, and the furnaces' efficiency is low, leading to environmental problems. Therefore, this study aims to assess the environmental impacts of Panela production to identify possible hotspots and propose alternatives to reduce the environmental impacts such as acidification, global warming, freshwater eutrophication, and particulate matter emissions. Aspen Plus, interviews, and databases were used to determine life cycle inventory that then was used to calculate environmental impacts. Central results showed that producing 1 kg of Panela results in a carbon footprint of 4.09 kg CO₂-eq and removes 6.02 kg CO₂ during the growth phase. Moreover, the acidification potential, freshwater eutrophication, and particulate matter emissions were 0.21 molc H⁺-eq, 0.0077 kg P-eq, and 0.0042 kg PM_2.5-eq, respectively. These impacts are mainly due to the harvesting phase, as agro-industrial wastes such as sugarcane press mud, and leaves are disposed of incorrectly. To solve this issue, suitable methods of fertilization are proposed, achieving a reduction in acidification potential and particulate matter emissions by 80%. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 35% if bagasse is not burned. Hence, the combination of both alternatives will improve the sustainable production of Panela. The significance of this study is to show new alternatives to reduce the environmental impact of Panela. Besides, these strategies such as improving agricultural practices and designing new furnaces are aligned with national policies.

Aspen Plus

Carbon footprint

Life Cycle Assessment

Jaggery

Panela

Non-centrifugal sugar also known as Panela in Colombia and as Jaggery in Asian countries is a sweetener that contributes greatly to the income of developing countries such as Colombia, India, and Pakistan (Jaffe, 2015). Colombia currently produces 1.5 Mt of non-centrifugal sugar, making it the country with the second largest production, surpassed only by India. However, Colombia is the largest consumer and Panela is a part of the diet of all Colombians (Jader et al., 2018). Therefore, this product plays an important role in economic and social development, contributing significantly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and generating about 290,000 jobs which are concentrated merely in 326 municipalities in the Andean region (Gutiérrez-Mosquera et al., 2018). However, the production of non-centrifugal sugar is still carried out through processes that lead to various environmental problems such as water, soil, and air pollution, mainly related to the lack of mechanization and low technological adoption (Ramírez Gil, 2016).

Recently, the Colombian’s government updated the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) which aims to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from different sectors including the non-centrifugal sugar industry. In this sector, mitigation strategies focus on converting diesel engines to electric motors, replacing 50% the fossil fuels with biomass, improving the efficiency of the thermal process, promoting the efficient use of synthetic fertilizers, and encouraging the reduction of uncontrolled biomass burning (Correa-Laguna et al., 2021). To implement these mitigation strategies, it is important to define the environmental hotspots within the process and identify the potential cause of impact. To this end, the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology has received considerable attention as a tool for identifying and developing strategies to mitigate environmental impacts in the non-centrifugal sugar sector. In the recent years, some reports have been made. For instance, Castañeda-Suárez et al., (2017) calculated a carbon footprint of 0.31 kg CO₂-eq to produce 1 kg of non-centrifugal sugar. They identified that the use of diesel in the mill results in a high environmental impact, and its replacement with electric motors could reduce the carbon footprint to 0.30 kg CO₂-eq. Similarly, Sierra et al., (2022) assessed the LCA to produce non-centrifugal sugar in La Hoya del Rio Suarez, the main production site in Colombia. They pointed out that incomplete burnings are responsible for the emissions of harmful gases in the facility. Besides, they agree that switching from diesel engines to electric motors will reduce environmental impact. Tyagi et al., (2022a) conclude that inadequate combustion of fuels produces hazardous compounds such as CO and particulate matter, which can be mitigated by some technical modifications to furnaces. In fact, about 97% of CO and particulate matter emissions and 66% CO₂ emissions could be reduced if the furnace is retrofitted (Tyagi et al., 2022b). Since non-centrifugal sugar is commonly produced in areas that are not connected to the power grid, fossil diesel is often used to generate electricity. Therefore, within the sector, harnessing of by-products such as sugarcane press-mud (also known as sugarcane scum) is an alternative to mitigate the impact of the facilities. Mendieta et al., (2021) show that the integration of anaerobic digesters into the facility will considerably reduce freshwater eutrophication (87.61%) and marine eutrophication (99.36%). However, the carbon footprint does not appear to be affected by the integration of this technology (0.54%).

As mentioned above, mitigation of environmental impacts is focused primarily on diesel engine replacement and combustion equipment improvements. However, as stated in the NDC, the environmental impact of the use of proper fertilizers has not been explored in this sector. It is well known that the application of different fertilizers is strongly correlated with environmental impacts (Mohammadi-Kashka et al., 2023; Quirós et al., 2015). Therefore, it is important to study the effect of fertilization on the LCA of non-centrifugal sugar production. In addition, the integration of simulation tools into LCA allows for a better understanding of the strategies that need to be implemented to improve the environmental impact of a process. For example, García et al., (2017) employed an Aspen Plus simulation to calculate the complete mass and energy balance during the gasification of Pinus patula. Similarly, Parascanu et al., (2021) used simulation to determine the mass and energy inputs and outputs in the production of bioethanol from agave juice and sugarcane for LCA. Likewise, Sanchez et al., (2021b) evaluated the LCA to produce 1 kWh in a fuel cell by using bioethanol from sugarcane press-mud. In this case, the integration of a simulation tool facilitates the life cycle assessment of different scenarios for the production of bioethanol and its further conversion through the catalytic process. Also, Cañon et al., (2022) performed a simulation in Aspen Plus to calculate the life cycle inventory on the production of ethyl levulinate from rice straw. The use of both tools allows the identification of critical hotspots and improvements within the process. Based on the above, the integration of simulation tools and LCA is appropriate for identifying potential hotspots within process and design strategies. Up to now, there is no simulation of the overall process to produce non-centrifugal sugar available.

Based on the above, this study aims to evaluate the LCA of non-centrifugal sugar by integrating simulation tools and data gathered from the farmers. In addition, we explore alternatives to mitigate the environmental impact of Colombia’s NDC. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies concerning the use of tools to simulate the overall process to produce non-centrifugal sugar. To fulfill this objective, a simulation was carried out, followed by the LCA analysis based on the simulation and data from the farmers. Finally, based on the simulation results, alternatives are presented to define strategies to improve the sustainable production of non-centrifugal sugar in the Colombian Andean region.

This study aims to simulate the process of producing non-centrifugal sugar by using data gathered in a small facility located in Colombia. The simulation results will be employed to calculate the environmental impacts of producing non-centrifugal sugar using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology and following the standards described by ISO 14040, 14044, and 14604. In the upcoming sections, we briefly describe the methodological steps to fulfill the aforecited goal.

2.1 Data acquisition

Data was gathered from a small facility located in the municipality of Villeta (5°00’46’’N, 74°28’23’’W) by interviewing the facility's owners. The data obtained was employed as input information to simulate Aspen Plus® v.12 (AspenTech, MA, USA) and to build the inventory to calculate the environmental impacts through LCA.

2.2. Process description and simulation

The simulation was carried out in Aspen Plus® v.12 (AspenTech, MA, USA). Figure 1 shows the process flowsheet of the process to produce non-centrifugal sugar in a small facility. Sugarcane, which is collected manually by farmers, is sent to the facility by mules. Sugarcane was modeled as a mixture of bagasse (30 wt.%), sugarcane-press mud (4 wt.%), sucrose (10 wt.%), and water (56 wt.%), as shown in Table 1. Sucrose and water were modeled as conventional components, while bagasse and sugarcane press mud were modeled as non-conventional components. HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT models were used to calculate the enthalpy and density of non-conventional components, respectively, by using the proximal and ultimate analysis (Sanchez et al., 2021b). The analyses are shown in Table 1. The composition of bagasse was retrieved from literature, and the composition of sugarcane press mud was characterized by a certified laboratory.

Table 1

Characterization of the sugarcane employed in the simulation.
Components	Bagasse¹	Sugarcane press-mud²	Guacimo³
Proximal analysis (wt.%)
Moisture	5.4	75.28	7.99
Volatile matter	84.78	83.09	80.92
Fixed carbon	11.95	10.36	17.28
Ashes	3.28	6.55	1.80
Ultimate analysis (wt.%)
Carbon	44.86	49.57	49.1
Hydrogen	5.87	7.11	5.8
Nitrogen	0.24	1.12	0
Sulfur	0.06	0.33	0
Oxygen	45.87	34.15	45.1
Lower heating Value (BTU/lb)	7740	976.6	7230
¹Data obtained from (Parascanu et al., 2020)

²Data obtained from certified a laboratory in Colombia.

³Data obtained from (Díez and Perez, 2017)

The harvested sugarcane is milled in a Trapiche to produce bagasse and sugarcane juice. The Trapiche was modeled using the SEP-1 subroutine, which simulates the separation of both fractions based on the fractional recovery collected from the interviews. The bagasse is then dried and sent to a furnace to produce heat. The dryer was modeled as a SEP-1 where water and bagasse fractional recovery were set based on the mass and energy balance. The combustion of sugarcane bagasse was modeled in a two-step reaction process by using a R-YIELD and R-GIBBS subroutine, as shown in Fig. 1. The R-YIELD simulates the decomposition of bagasse in the main components (i.e., H₂, C, S, N₂, and O₂) by using FORTRAN statements through a calculator block. This stream is sent to a R-GIBBS that simulates de combustion of sugarcane bagasse to produce CO, CO₂, SO_x, and NO_x (Parascanu et al., 2020). The air is fed to cool down the ashes from the combustion chamber at 100°C in a HEAT-X subroutine. The SEP-1 subroutine was employed to simulate the separation of ashes from the chimney gases in the combustion chamber. The heat from the chimney gases is used to heat up and evaporate the sugarcane juice in a countercurrent scheme formed by five pans (Shiralkar et al., 2014). The first pan was modeled using HEAT-X and SEP-1 subroutines. Herein, the HEAT-X simulates the heat transfer from the chimney gases to the sugarcane juice to reach 45°C. According to the local farmers, sugarcane press mud is removed at this temperature by adding Guacimo (Guazuma ulmifoliase), which is a natural flocculant widely employed to produce kraft non-centrifugal sugar (Ortiz et al., 2011). The subsequent pan (i.e., E-101 and E-102 in Fig. 1) were modeled as HEAT-X to simulate the temperature increment of the sugarcane to 90°C. The following pan was modeled by using a HEAT-X and FLASH-2 subroutines. The HEAT-X simulates the heating of sugarcane juice from 90 to 120°C, whereas FLASH-2 simulates the evaporation of water from the sugarcane juice to reach a sucrose concentration of 88 wt.%. The last pan was also modeled with a HEAT-X and a FLASH-2, where non-centrifugal sugar is yielded with a sucrose concentration of 92 wt.% at 130°C. The steam from the last two pans is mixed in a MIX-1 subroutine to calculate the overall steam production in the facility. The Universal Quasichemical (UNIQUAC) thermodynamic package was employed to model the liquid-vapor equilibria of sucrose-water mixtures (Fukushima et al., 2019), while the Peng-Robinson thermodynamic package was used to model the gas phase during the combustion of sugarcane bagasse (Parascanu et al., 2020).

2.3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed by following the guidelines of the ISO 14040 and 14044 (ISO, 2006) that encompasses four main stages: i) goal and scope definition; ii) life cycle inventory (LCI); iii) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and iv) interpretation. In the upcoming section, we will describe each of the LCA stages.

2.3.1. Goal and scope definition

This study aims to calculate the environmental impact of producing non-centrifugal sugar in a small facility in Colombia. The functional unit was set to 1 t of non-centrifugal sugar since this is the main activity within the small facility. Figure 2 shows the system boundaries where a cradle-to-gate approach was adopted. The system encompasses cultivation, harvesting and transport of sugarcane to the small facility, its conversion into non-centrifugal sugar by coupling milling, bagasse combustion, and evaporation. Furthermore, an attributional approach was adopted since we seek to determine the main environmental hotspot within the process. As shown in Fig. 2, different products are yielded during the production of non-centrifugal sugar. These by-products are leaves, buds, ashes, sugarcane press mud, and bagasse. According to farmers, leaves and buds are used as fertilizer and animal feed. Ashes are also used as fertilizer. Bagasse is utilized as a fuel in the furnace to evaporate the sugarcane juice. Lastly, sugarcane press mud is used for animal feeding. All the by-products are employed within the facility. Therefore, all the environmental burdens were allocated to the production of non-centrifugal sugar.

2.3.2. Life cycle inventory

Life cycle inventory (LCI) is the most critical stage in LCA. In this stage, all data required to calculate the environmental impacts were gathered from farmer interviews, Aspen Plus simulation, and literature review. The procedure to collect all the data is shown in the upcoming section. All information is shown in the [dataset].

2.3.2.1 Sugarcane cultivation

Life cycle inventory data was calculating according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. These calculations included N₂O and NH₃ emissions due to manure and soil management. Particulate matter emission, phosphorous emissions due to fertilization and residues disposal, irrigation demand, carbon sequestration, and land use change. Detailed calculation is shown in Supplementary Material 1.

2.3.2.2 non-centrifugal sugar production

Once sugarcane is harvested manually by farmers, it is transported to the facility by mules. This sugarcane is milled in a Trapiche that is powered by diesel or electricity. According to farmers, diesel consumption is 4 gal/milling, while the monthly electricity consumption is 541 kWh. In this facility, a milling produces 3.2 t of non-centrifugal sugar. Emissions factors for diesel are shown in Table A.2 (See Supplementary Material). After milling, the bagasse is stored. This bagasse is used as heat to evaporate the sugarcane juice, which is sent to an evaporation train formed by five open pans.

In the first pan, Guacimo is added as a natural coagulant that allows precipitating of soluble solids with an efficiency of 89.7% (L. Moreno et al., 2022). Guacimo is burnt after usage, and its combustion was modeled in Aspen Plus. In this stage, sugarcane press mud is recovered at 45°C. In the following pans, clarified sugarcane juice is evaporated to produce non-centrifugal sugar at 130°C. As stated before, bagasse is sent to the combustion chamber to produce heat. The amount of heat obtained from the combustion chamber was retrieved from the simulation in Aspen Plus. Combustion of bagasse produces emissions according to Table A.2 (See Supplementary Material 1). Herein, we assumed biogenic carbon to the emissions from bagasse. Ash is also produced, and they are employed as fertilizer. However, since their composition is unknown, emissions from ashes were not considered. Non-centrifugal sugar is packed using plastic bags and lone bags. Emissions from material construction were not considered since they have a low impact compared to direct emissions (Sanchez et al., 2021a).

2.3.2.3 Animal feed

As described above, animals play a crucial role in the facility since the animal manure is collected and used as fertilizer. Hence, animal feeding was considered in this case. According to the interview, animal consumes 1.10 ton per year of sugarcane press mud. The animal feed composition is 66.5% water, 3.3% sugarcane press mud, 0.7% salt, and 29.5% buds and leaves. In addition, maize is used to feed poultry.

2.3.2.4 Transport of raw materials

Transportation of raw materials includes 1) diesel; 2) salt; 3) plastic bags; 4) lone bags; and 5) maize from Bogota D.C to Villeta whose distance is about 87 km plus the 5.5 km from Villeta to the facility. Initially, they are transported from Bogota D.C. to Villeta by small trucks boosted by diesel with a EURO IV standard adopted since 2015 in Colombia. The transport from Villeta to the facility is carried out by car boosted by diesel (Castillo et al., 2022). Besides, we considered a factor capacity of 50%. It means that the transport is made in both ways, but the backway is driven with no loading. The inventory for transport is calculated according to Eq. 1 where m_RM is the amount of raw materials in tons or units (i.e., plastic bags and lone bags), d is the distance in km.

\(\text{T}\left(\text{T}\text{o}\text{n}\text{*}\text{k}\text{m} \text{o}\text{r} \text{u}\text{n}\text{i}\text{t}\text{*}\text{k}\text{m}\right)={\text{m}}_{\text{R}\text{M}}\text{*}\text{d}\text{*}0.5\) Eq. (1)

2.3.2. Life cycle impact assessment

The life cycle impact assessment methodology selected for this study was ILCD + 2011 to calculate climate change (kg CO₂-eq), acidification (molc H⁺-eq), freshwater eutrophication (kg P-eq), and particulate matter (kg PM_2.5-eq). The ILCD + 2011 method was developed by the European Commission, and it analyses several life cycle impacts to reach a consensus on the recommended method for each impact category (Su, 2020). These impacts were calculated using the software OpenLCA v.1.10.3 (GreenDelta, Germany). In addition, a comparison for climate change was carried out among ILCD + 2011, ReCiPe 2016 (H), and IPCC 2013 100a.

3.1. Mass and energy balance

Mass and energy balance was calculated based on the farmer’s interviews and Aspen Plus. According to farmers, there are two harvests per month where the monthly amount of non-centrifugal sugar collected is 6.4 t. Therefore, annually the facility produces about 76.8 t of non-centrifugal sugar. The composition of non-centrifugal sugar is 78.4% cane, 14.8% leaves, and 6.8% buds. Figure 2 shows that producing 76.8 t of non-centrifugal sugar requires 768 t of fresh sugarcane, 247 t of diesel, and 6.1 MWh of electricity. In addition, several by products are obtained, such as sugarcane press mud (29.9 t), buds and leaves (211.6 t), and bagasse (230.4 t). According to Aspen’s results, the amount of heat delivered by the combustion of bagasse harnessed by the pan to evaporate the sugarcane juice was 9,655 MJ/t. The flue gas leaving the furnace is 850°C, similar to the furnace employed in a non-centrifugal sugar facility (Jader et al., 2018). Table 2 shows the mass and energy balance results for different facilities in Colombia and India, which are the leading Panela producers worldwide (Alarcón et al., 2020).

Table 2

Mass and energy balance results of producing 1 t of non-centrifugal sugar.
Location	Villeta (Colombia)	Colombia	Colombia	India	India
Sugarcane press-mud yield (t/t)	0.39	0.32	0.28	0.08	0.14
Buds and leaves yield (t/t)	2.80	NR	2.55	NR	NR
Bagasse yield (t/t)	3.00	3.63	NR	2.39	3.31
Heat demand (MJ/t)	9,655	12,546	NR	13,001	9551,3
Reference	This study	(Castañeda-Suárez et al., 2017)	(Mendieta et al., 2021)	(Jakkamputi and Mandapati, 2016)	(Manjare and Hole, 2013)

According to Table 2, the yield of bagasse varied from 2.39 to 3.63 t/t of non-centrifugal sugar and consequently the heat demand also ranged from 9,551 to 13,000 MJ/t of non-centrifugal sugar. Differences in both bagasse and heat demand depend on the furnace design where the main factors are the flow patterns and geometry. For instance, Shiralkar et al., (2014) showed that furnace’s thermal efficiency could be improved by including dampers in the furnace. In addition, the increase in air inlet temperature could reduce 1,998 MJ and save 0.12 t of bagasse per ton of non-centrifugal sugar (Jakkamputi and Mandapati, 2016). Besides, an inefficient furnace led to the use of alternate solid fuels such as wood and rubber tires that increase greenhouse gases (Jader et al., 2018). Concerning sugarcane press mud, its yield varied from 0.08 to 0.39 t/t non-centrifugal sugar, as shown in Table 2. According to the Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research (Agrosavia), which is the national entity that leads the technological development of the agricultural sector through the scientific research, the output of sugarcane press-mud varies from 0.15 to 0.46 t/t and strongly depends on the sugarcane variety. For instance, the ZC, which is the variety used in this study, has a typical yield of 0.30 t/t (Ramírez-Durán et al., 2014) whose value is lower than that reported by the facility (i.e., 0.39 t/t). Differences could be attributed to the farming practices that include the use of natural flocculants. Sugarcane press-mud is commonly collected during the concentration of sugarcane juice by using natural flocculants such as Guacimo, black balso, and mucilage which have a different efficiency to precipitate the soluble solids (L. Moreno et al., 2022). The higher the efficiency of the flocculant is, the lower the amount of sugarcane press mud will be.

Concerning the combustion of bagasse, Aspen Plus simulation results shows a total emissions of CO₂ of 342 kg/t bagasse, as shown in Table A.2 (see Supplementary Material S.1). In contrast, the National Federation of Panela (Fedepanela) reported 732 kg of CO₂ per each ton of burnt bagasse. In addition, according to Rodríguez Borray et al. (2020), the emission of CO₂ varies from 2.9 to 4.1 kg/kg non-centrifugal sugar in the department of Cundinamarca. In this case, the CO₂ yield was 4.02 kg/kg non-centrifugal sugar. These results were used to build the life cycle inventory, which included land occupation, consumption of fertilizers, emissions associated with their use, use of diesel in the Trapiche, and emissions from the combustion of bagasse. The life cycle inventory of the production of non-centrifugal sugar is explored in the upcoming section.

3.1. Life cycle inventory

Figure 2 shows the main inputs associated with the inventory to produce 76.8 t of non-centrifugal sugar. According to farmers, the total land available to cultivate non-centrifugal sugarcane is 23 ha. Non-centrifugal sugarcane reaches physiological maturity after 392 days, and it can be harvested up to 502 days after the sowing (Durán et al., 2014; Gonzáles Chavarro et al., 2018). Hence, to warrant a continuous production of non-centrifugal sugar, a portion of the cultivated sugarcane reach maturity in a specific land area whose value was calculated to be 4.27 ha, as shown in Fig. 2. Based on this land area, fertilizers consumption and emissions associated with its use were forecasted, and their results are shown in the upcoming section. Table 3 summarizes the life cycle inventory for the whole process. The inventory is divided into the main stages including livestock, crop stage, milling, bagasse combustion, and non-centrifugal sugar production. The inventory was calculated based on the functional unit which is an annual production of 76.8 t of non-centrifugal sugar.

Table 3

Life cycle inventory for the production of non-centrifugal sugar. Functional unit = 76.8 t non-centrifugal sugar
Parameter	Stream	Unit	Value	Ecoinvent v3.4
Livestock
Salt	Input	kg	219	Sodium chloride production, powder \| sodium chloride, powder \| APOS, S - RoW
Melote	Input	kg	1095	Created by the user
Water	Input	m³	21.8	treatment of wastewater, unpolluted, from residence, capacity 1.1E10l/year \| wastewater, unpolluted, from residence \| APOS, S - RoW
Leaves and buds	Input	kg	9702	Created by the user
Purine	Input	kg	1095	grass fibres to generic market for energy feed \| grass fibre \| APOS, S - GLO
Maize	Input	kg	1095	maize grain, feed production \| maize grain, feed \| APOS, S - RoW
Transport truck	Input	t*km	209.6	transport, freight, light commercial vehicle \| transport, freight, light commercial vehicle \| APOS, S - RoW
Transport car	Input	t*km	13.2	transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4 \| transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4 \| APOS, S - RoW
CH₄	Emission to air	kg	12.0	Methane \|Emission to air, unspecified
NH₃	Emission to air	kg	116.2	Ammonia \|emission to air, unspecified
Manure	Output	kg	28935	Created by the user
Crop
Land	Input	Ha	4.7	Occupation, agricultural peatland \|resource, land\|
Precipitation	Input	m³	215569	Water, rain
Manure	Input	kg	28935	Created by the user
Leaves and buds	Input	t	201.9	Created by the user
Sugarcane press-mud	Input	t	28.7	Created by the user
Carbon sequestration	Input	t	706.9	Carbon dioxide\|resource, in air\|
Carbon sequestration	Input	t	471.8	Carbon dioxide\|resource, in air\|
Ash	Input	t	12.0	nutrient supply from ash, from combustion of bagasse from sugarcane \| ash, from combustion of bagasse from sugarcane \| APOS, S - GLO
CO₂	Emission to air	t	346.3	Carbon dioxide, from soil or biomass stock\|emission to air, unspecified
N₂O	Emission to air	kg	32.1	Dinitrogen monoxide \|emission to air, unspecified
N₂O	Emission to water	kg	6.7	Dinitrogen monoxide \|emission to water, unspecified
NH₃	Emission to air	kg	4204.3	Ammonia \|emission to air, unspecified
NO_X	Emission to air	kg	65.4	Nitrogen oxides\|Emission to air, unspecified
NO₃	Emission to water	kg	805.2	Nitrates \|Emission to water, unspecified
PO₄	Emission to ground water	kg	172.6	Phosphates\|Emission to groundwater
PO₄	Emission to surface water	kg	1497.2	Phosphates\|Emission to surface water
P	Emission to surface water	kg	40.8	Phosphorus\|Emission to surface water
PM₁₀	Emission to air	kg	1.2	Particulates < 2.5 um\|Emissiont to air, unspecified
PM_2.5	Emission to air	kg	0.1	Particulates > 10 um\|Emission to air, unspecified
Leaves and buds	Output	t	211.6	Created by the user
Sugarcane	Output	t	768.0	Created by the user
Milling
Sugarcane	Input	t	768	Created by the user
ACPM	Input	kg	247.11	diesel production, low-sulfur \| diesel, low-sulfur \| APOS, S - RoW
Electricity	Input	kWh	6144.00	market for electricity, low voltage \| electricity, low voltage \| APOS, S - CO
Transport truck	Input	t*km	21.50	transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4 \| transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4 \| APOS, S - RoW
Transport car	Input	t*km	1.3591	transport, freight, light commercial vehicle \| transport, freight, light commercial vehicle \| APOS, S - RoW
CO₂	Emission to air	kg	18.53	Carbon dioxide, fossil \|Emission to air, unspecified
NOx	Emission to air	kg	50.90	Nitrogen oxides\|Emission to air, unspecified
CO	Emission to air	kg	0.0037	Carbon monoxide,\|Emission to air, unspecified
CH₄	Emission to air	kg	0.0008	Methane, fossil \|Emission to air, unspecified
NOVMC	Emission to air	kg	0.0013	NMVOC, non-methane volatile organic compounds, unspecified origin\|Emission to air, unspecified
PM	Emission to air	kg	0.0047	Particulates\|Emission to air, unspecified
Sugarcane juice	Output	t	537.6	Created by the user
Bagasse	Output	t	230.4	Created by the user
Bagasse combustion
Bagasse	Input	t	230.4	Created by the user
CO₂	Emission to air	t	308.8	Carbon dioxide, biogenic \|Emission to air, unspecified
CO	Emission to air	kg	12	Carbon monoxide, biogenic \|Emission to air, unspecified
SOx	Emission to air	kg	248	Sulfur oxides \|Emission to air, unspecified
N₂O	Emission to air	kg	0.179	Dinitrogen monoxide \|emission to air, unspecified
NO	Emission to air	kg	2428.8	Nitrogen monoxide \|Emission to air, unspecified
NO₂	Emission to air	kg	9.132	Nitrogen dioxide \|Emission to air, unspecified
CH₄	Emission to air	kg	0.000	Methane, biogenic \|Emissiont to air, unspecified
Ash	Output	t	12	Created by the user
Heat	Output	GJ	931.4	Created by the user
non-centrifugal sugar
Sugarcane juice	Input	t	537.6	Created by the user
Guacimo	Input	kg	480	willow production, short rotation coppice \| wood chips and particles, willow \| APOS, S - RoW
Heat	Input	GJ	931.5	Created by the user
Lone bags	Input	kg	864	extrusion production, plastic pipes \| extrusion, plastic pipes \| APOS, S - RoW
Plastic bags	Input	kg	40.32	extrusion production, plastic film \| extrusion, plastic film \| APOS, S - RoW
Transport truck	Input	t*km	6760.3	transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4 \| transport, freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4 \| APOS, S - RoW
Transport car	Input	t*km	427.3	transport, freight, light commercial vehicle \| transport, freight, light commercial vehicle \| APOS, S - RoW
Sugarcane press-mud	Output	t	1.09	Created by the user
Sugarcane press-mud	Output	t	28.8	Created by the user
Non-centrifugal sugar	Output	kg	76.8	Created by the user

3.1.1. Fertilizers consumption and emissions

Figure 2 shows that this facility did not employ chemical fertilizers to cultivate non-centrifugal sugarcane. Fertilizers are used within a facility to deliver the macronutrients (i.e., nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous) and micronutrients (e.g., calcium, magnesium, silicon, and iron) to guarantee a proper growth of the non-centrifugal sugarcane. According to the farmers, most components are directly obtained from the soil. To validate this statement, a mass balance for the most relevant nutrients (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) was calculated. Figure 3 shows the nutritional requirement for sugarcane growing based on experimental data retrieved from literature (Gonzáles Chavarro et al., 2018), while the nutrients available for sugarcane uptake were calculated based on the available information from the manure, residues, and soil composition. The mass of nutrients in the soil was calculated according to the soil depth required during the sowing stage whose value was 60 cm according to farmers.

According to Fig. 3, manure, residues, and nutrients available in the soil are enough to cover the demand for nitrogen and phosphorous. However, in the case of phosphorous, a surplus is commonly observed in sugarcane fields in Brazil. Excess phosphorous is important because it tends to adsorb in the soil due to the presence of iron and aluminum compounds, and consequently, the plant uses less phosphorous for growing (Rosa et al., 2022). Regarding other nutrients, such as calcium and magnesium, said nutrients are deficient. While non-centrifugal sugarcane annually requires 348 kg and 147 kg of calcium and magnesium, the soil could deliver at least 141.6 kg of calcium and 30.52 kg of magnesium. Therefore, add mineral fertilizers such as dolomite is advisable to cover the calcium and magnesium demand. The nitrogen and phosphorous addition rate (expressed as P₂O₅) was 0.030 t and 1.22 t per ton of non-centrifugal sugar. Said values are higher than those reported by Mendieta et al. (2021), who reported 0.012 t/t for nitrogen and 0.016 t/t for phosphorous, and those stated by Powar et al. (2022), whose nitrogen and phosphorous rate application were 0.022 t/t. The high application of either mineral or organic fertilizers led to a high emission rate of NO_x, nitrates, and phosphates to the atmosphere and water sources.

According to Fig. 2, emissions from the cultivation stage are NH₃ (0.054 t/t), N₂O (0.42 kg/t), PO₄ (0.022 t/t), and NO₃ (0.011 t/t). These emissions are associated with the disposal of agro-industrial residues and manure. Said values are higher than those reported by Mendieta et al. (2021), who reported NH₃, N₂O, PO₄, and NO₃ emissions of 0.0014 t/t, 0.232 kg/t, 0.0021 t/t, and 0.00075 t/t, respectively. The high emissions from fertilizer application in this study were associated with the improper disposal of agricultural residues and manure in the crop fields. Other emissions related to the cultivation stage are particulate matter (0.016 kg/t) and CO₂ (4.51 t/t).

3.1.2. Non-centrifugal sugar production

Figure 2 shows that diesel consumption in the facility is 3.21 kg/t, and the electricity consumption is 0.08 MWh/t. The Trapiche, which is the mill employed to produce the sugarcane, consumes both fuels. Diesel is commonly used as a back operation when electricity is not available. Despite diesel consumption is started to be banned from the operation, diesel consumption in this facility is quite lower in comparison with other facilities that reported a diesel consumption between 11.7 to 15.4 kg/t (Castañeda-Suárez et al., 2017; Powar et al., 2022). In this case, the diesel combustion in the engine produces mainly CO₂ (0.24 kg/t) and NOx (0.66 kg/t). After sugarcane crushing, the bagasse is dried and combusted in a furnace producing 4.09 t CO₂ per ton of non-centrifugal sugar, and traces of other air pollutants such as NOx, CO, and CH₄. The amount of CO₂ produced due to the combustion in the facility is 2.5 times higher than in other facilities (Mendieta et al., 2021). The air/bagasse ratio was estimated to be 7.67 t/t. The use of inventory collected in this stage was employed to calculate the environmental impact to produce non-centrifugal sugar.

3.2. Life cycle impact assessment

3.2.1. Carbon footprint

CO₂ is an important component for crop development since it acts as a source for the photosynthesis process which consists of the use of carbon sources, water, and sunlight to produce carbohydrates (Harris et al., 2017). As CO₂ is an outstanding component in the life cycle of plants, it should be accounted for within the LCA of a process where biomass growth is involved. However, different approaches have been addressed to quantify the carbon footprint of processes where the cultivation stage is involved. Those approaches lead to different results in carbon footprint, and consequently, the results must be analyzed thoroughly to give suitable information about the climate change impact of a specific process.

Figure 4 shows the difference of the carbon footprint to produce 1 kg of non-centrifugal sugar through different impact methodologies such as ILCD, ReCiPe, and IPCC 100a. These methodologies measure the climate impact based on the radiative efficiency and pollutant’s lifetime in the atmosphere. However, as plants capture CO₂ from the atmosphere, carbon sequestration could be considered when the whole life cycle is taken into account. According to Brandão et al., (2013), there are different approaches to calculating the effect of carbon sequestration during LCA of biological products. One of the approaches is called fixed carbon. In this approach, CO₂ sequestration by plants is higher than the CO₂ release over the complete life cycle, and therefore CO₂ is modeled as biogenic carbon. By definition, biogenic carbon refers to the carbon which comes from biological sources as well as the carbon released from litterfall degradation or soil respiration (Harris et al., 2017). Some methodologies such as the IPCC 100a and ReCiPe consider the carbon biogenic emission factor as 0 kg CO₂-eq/kg CO₂ (Levasseur et al., 2013), and indicates that the CO₂ that is emitted in the combustion is lower than that required for growth, and consequently achieving a carbon neutral process.

Figure 5 shows that carbon captured by the crop is 128.7 t C/a while the carbon emitted through the combustion of bagasse is 84.1 t C/a. Therefore, CO₂ could be modeled as biogenic. This approach has been highly employed to calculate the carbon footprint of bioenergy systems (Cherubini and Strømman, 2011; Kumar et al., 2018). Nevertheless, this approach has been criticized because it hinders the real effect of CO₂ emissions from biological resources since CO₂ emitted to the atmosphere will have the same radiative effect in the atmosphere as fossil CO₂ (Brandão et al., 2013). Besides, when the biomass is burned the carbon is instantly released into the atmosphere, whereas CO₂ sequestration takes longer times (Shonnard et al., 2015). A second approach is described by the ILCD impact methodology, which considers that biogenic CO₂ uptake has an emission factor of -1 kg CO₂-eq/kg CO₂, while CO₂ emissions have a positive value of 1 kg CO₂-eq/kg CO₂, regardless of the origin.

According to Fig. 4, negative emissions were calculated to produce 1 kg of non-centrifugal sugar. A negative environmental impact value indicates carbon savings in the process. In general, direct emissions were 4.02 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal, indirect emissions were 0.061 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal, and carbon sequestration varied depending on the biomass fraction considered during the growth phase. On the one hand, a carbon sequestration of 9.09 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal was calculated if leaves were considered as part of the plant. Therefore, an overall carbon footprint of -5.00 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar was obtained. On the other hand, a carbon sequestration of 6.01 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar was obtained if leaves were not considered in the carbon sequestration model calculation, and hence overall carbon footprint was − 1.93 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar. Lazzerini et al. (2022) proposed that carbon content in leaves should not be accounted for since leaves are disposed of directly in the land, they act as a carbon source, and sugarcane could be used for its growth. According to Thongjoo et al. (2005), CO₂ emissions from agro-industrial waste disposal in the soil strongly correlate with its degradation. Therefore, CO₂ fixation by leaves was not accounted for, and consequently, the carbon footprint by the ILCD methodology was − 1.93 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar. Other carbon sources for plants could be found directly in the soil. However, plants can easily uptake CO₂ from the atmosphere rather than from the soil. According to Majlesi et al. (2019), carbon uptake by roots in plants is < 10%. Hence, most carbon required for plant growth comes from the atmosphere as CO₂.

Due to the high discrepancy of approaches to account for carbon storage in biological processes, Cherubini et al. (2011) developed a model to calculate the removal of bio-CO₂ from the atmosphere based on the rotating periods. They point out that longer biomass rotating periods increases CO₂ in the atmosphere since certain biomass takes long periods to reach maturity (e.g., woods) (Levasseur et al., 2013). Besides, the ability of biomass to reduce GHG is highly correlated with the time to sequester back the carbon in the growing stage (Brandão et al., 2013). Since sugarcane is harvested yearly, carbon fixation by sugarcane was considered in this study.

Table 4 summarizes the carbon footprint calculation for different studies where most of them considered CO₂ as biogenic carbon, but carbon sequestration was not included. According to these studies, carbon footprint, when biogenic carbon was accounted, varied from 0.25 to 0.44 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar, and its variation depends on the assumptions made. Otherwise, if carbon sequestration is considered, the carbon footprint was close to zero or negative. For instance, Powar et al. (2022) calculated a carbon footprint of 1.33 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar. However, when carbon sequestration was considered, this value decreased to 0.029 kg CO₂-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar where 0.44 kg CO₂ is sequestered by each kg of sugarcane.

Table 4

Carbon footprint to produce non-centrifugal sugar.
Location	Climate change (kg CO₂-eq/kg panela)	Carbon analysis	Impact methodology	Ref.
Colombia	0.438	Biogenic	ReCiPe (H)	(Mendieta et al., 2021)
Colombia	0.371	Biogenic	ReCiPe (H)	(Castañeda-Suárez et al., 2017)
Colombia	0.249	Biogenic	Environmental footprint 2.0	(Sierra et al., 2022)
India	0.029	Sequestration	Not reported	(Powar et al., 2022)
Colombia	-1.63	Sequestration	ILCD 2011+	This study

3.2.2. Other environmental impacts

Table 5 shows the relative contribution of different environmental impacts such as acidification, climate change, freshwater eutrophication, and particulate matter during non-centrifugal sugar production. As is displayed in Table 5, cultivation is the stage that contributes the most in a harmful way to the environmental impact in terms of acidification, freshwater eutrophication, and particulate matter. While this stage contributes positively to climate change. Cultivation refers to the crop and harvest of sugarcane.

Table 5

Contribution analysis for each impact for the different crop stage
Stage	Acidification (molc H⁺-eq)	Climate change (kg CO₂-eq)	Freshwater eutrophication (kg P-eq)	Particulate matter (kg PM_2.5-eq)
Crop and harvest	0.1659	-6.0175	0.0071	0.0037
Manure management	0.0045	0.0377	0	0.0001
Milling	0.0005	0.0002	0	0
Bagasse combustion	0.0357	4.0213	0	0.0004
Indirect	0.0006	0.0613	0.0006	0
Total	0.2072	-1.9310	0.0077	0.0042

Acidification was 0.207 molc H⁺-eq/kg non-centrifugal sugar, where the cultivation stage accounts for 80% of the total acidification of the process. This is mainly associated with the production of ammonia and NO_x by the disposal of manure and residues in the soil. Nitrogen compounds are emitted to the atmosphere, where HNO₃ is formed, and afterward are released to the soil and water sources as rain acid, increasing acidity (Hunter et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2022). Concerning freshwater eutrophication, the production of 1 kg of non-centrifugal sugar has an impact of 0.0077 kg P-eq, mainly ascribed to the formation of phosphates leached to the surface and groundwater. Most of these phosphorous emissions were attributed to the high amount of unproperly disposed of in the soil. Lastly, particulate matter was 0.00418 kg PM_2.5/kg non-centrifugal sugar, and 88% of this impact was associated with the cultivation stage. In this case, particulate matter is closely related to ammonia, NOx, and particulates emitted due to the use of manure and the wrong disposal of agro-industrial wastes. To decrease these impacts, it is vital to use the proper amounts of nutrients to avoid larger environmental impacts, as explored in the upcoming section.

3.2.3. Sensitive analysis

Improvements to the furnace of the non-centrifugal sugar could be performed to increase the bagasse savings and reduce the carbon footprint associated with the bagasse combustion whose value is 4.02 kg CO₂-eq/kg panela. For instance, Jakkamputi and Mandapati, (2016) showed that using solar energy could increase the bagasse savings from 0.029 to 0.24 kg/kg. Similarly, Tyagi et al. (2022) found that a reduction of 12% could be achieved if some technical modifications to the furnace were carried out. Figure 6 shows the effect of bagasse savings on the fuel gas temperature and CO₂ emissions from a thermodynamic perspective where a bagasse savings of 0.24 kg/kg could decrease the fuel gas temperature from 850 to 650°C, and the CO₂ emissions from 1.32 to 1.00 kg CO₂/kg bagasse. Bagasse savings is associated with a better combustion of the fuel and a proper furnace design. Since the main heat transfer mechanism during bagasse combustion is convection and radiation, the fluid slow circulation highly affect the energy efficiency (Gutiérrez-Mosquera et al., 2018). Besides, Jader et al., (2018) showed that different furnaces will show differences in the heat losses, thermal efficiencies, and combustion temperature that will affect bagasse savings.

The avoided bagasse could be employed as feedstock to produce other compounds such as hydrogen (H₂) which has been converted as the most promissory alternative in the global energy transition (J. Moreno et al., 2022). Furthermore, bagasse savings will further reduce the carbon footprint of non-centrifugal sugar. Figure 7 shows different alternatives to improve the environmental impact. Alternative 1, in Fig. 7, portrays the effect on the bagasse savings for different environmental impacts. As expected, the carbon footprint (climate change in Fig. 7), is dwindled by avoiding the combustion of bagasse. Besides, acidification and particulate matter are also reduced due to the reduction of NOx.

Another alternative is using the proper amount of nutrients to carry out the harvest stage. As shown in Fig. 3, the annual nutritional requirements of non-centrifugal sugar are 1,319 kg N, 201 kg P, 1,400 kg K, 348 kg Ca, and 147 kg Mg. Based on that information, sugarcane press-mud could be avoided since the sugarcane leaves supply all the nitrogen requirements. Concerning other nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium, potassium chloride and dolomite will cover the nutrient demand. According to Fig. 7, alternative two, which refers to avoid unproper disposal of residues, will considerably reduce the acidification and particulate matter, and in low-expense freshwater eutrophication. In the case of acidification and particulate matter, avoiding sugarcane press mud will reduce the formation of NH₃ which highly contributes to these impacts. Regarding freshwater eutrophication, a reduction of 4% was observed because 24% of leaves were not discarded in the field. In the case of CO₂, an increment of 1% was observed due to the production of potassium chloride and dolomite and emissions associated with the use of dolomite. Lastly, combining both alternatives show a depletion of the environmental impact, mainly on acidification, climate change, and particulate matter. Therefore, implementing proper agricultural practices and improving furnaces will enhance the environmental impact during non-centrifugal sugar production. In addition, the use of those alternatives will produce by-products such as leaves (54.6 t/year), bagasse (57.6 t/year), and sugarcane press-mud (28.8 t/year) that could be employed to deliver valuable products in other industrial sectors to increase the profits within the non-centrifugal sugar industry and becoming more competitive within the local market. Therefore, Panela sector will highly contribute to the economic development of the Andean region.

Non-centrifugal sugar is an outstanding crop in the social and economic development of developing countries such as Colombia and India. Therefore, assessing its environmental impacts can contribute to the carbon-neutrality goal and fulfill the Colombian NDC. Herein, we calculated the acidification, climate change, freshwater eutrophication, and particulate matter of a non-centrifugal sugar facility in the Andean Region of Colombia. Results show that improper disposal of residues and manure from animals led to increased impacts, especially acidification, particulate matter, and freshwater eutrophication whose values were 0.207 molc H⁺-eq, 0.0042 kg PM_2.5-eq, and 0.0077 kg P-eq per kg of non-centrifugal sugar, respectively. Improvements in fertilizing practices will reduce these impacts by almost 80%. Otherwise, the production of 1 kg of non-centrifugal sugar produces 4.09 kg CO₂-eq and captures 6.01 kg CO₂-eq. The difference between these values results in a benefit from an environmental perspective. To improve this environmental impact, the furnace must be modified to reduce carbon footprint by almost 35%. Combining both alternatives will result in the sustainable production of non-centrifugal sugar. Besides, leaves, bagasse, and sugarcane press mud that are not employed in the facility could be used as sources to produce valuable products in other industrial sectors.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Nestor Sanchez and David Rodríguez-Fontalvo. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Nestor Sanchez and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Author Contribution

Conceptualization: Nestor Sanchez, Martha Cobo, Ruth Y. Ruiz-Pardo, David Rodríguez-Fontalvo, Anne Roedl; Methodology: Nestor Sanchez; Formal Analysis and Investigation: Nestor Sanchez, David Rodriguez-Fontalvo; Writing – Original Draft preparation: Nestor Sanchez, David Rodriguez-Fontalvo; Writing Review and Editing: Martha Cobo, Ruth Y. Ruiz-Pardo, Anne Roedl; Funding acquisition: Nestor Sanchez and Martha Cobo; Resources: Nestor Sanchez and Martha Cobo; Supervision: Nestor Sanchez, Martha Cobo, Ruth Y. Ruiz Pardo.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful with Universidad de La Sabana for the funding through project ING-288-2021. Besides, the authors are grateful to Lorena Guillen, CEO of Panela Don Pedro for gathering the information in the facility.

Data availability

The datasets generated during or analyzed during the current study are available in the MENDELEY repository, as follows: Sanchez, Nestor (2023), “Data for non-centrifugal sugar production”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/v3mpf78z9n.1

Alarcón ÁL, Orjuela A, Narváez PC, Camacho EC (2020) Processing Thermal and Rheological Properties of Juices and Syrups during Non-centrifugal Sugar Cane (Jaggery) Production. Food Bioprod Process 1:76–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2020.01.016
Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Jørgensen SV, Hauschild MZ, Pennington DW, Chomkhamsri K (2013) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:230–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0451-6
Cañon C, Sanchez N, Cobo M (2022) Sustainable production of ethyl levulinate by levulinic acid esterification obtained from Colombian rice straw. J Clean Prod 377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134276
Castañeda-Suárez JE, González-Dumar AM, Usma-Rojas CA, Cano-Londoño NA (2017) Análisis de ciclo de vida aplicado a la producción panelera tradicional en Colombia. Rev la Fac Ciencias 6:107–122. https://doi.org/10.15446/rev.fac.cienc.v6n1.63316
Castillo JC, López JC, Escobar A, Ríos D, Quirama LF, Tibaquirá JE (2022) Natural Gas, a Mean to Reduce Emissions and Energy Consumption of HDV? A Case Study of Colombia Based on Vehicle Technology Criteria. Energies 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030998
Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Strømman AH, Hertwich E (2011) CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: Atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy 3:413–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01102.x
Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 102:437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.010
Correa-Laguna JD, Pelgrims M, Valderrama ME, Morales R (2021) Colombia’s ghg emissions reduction scenario: Complete representation of the energy and non-energy sectors in leap. Energies 14:1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217078
Díez H, Perez JF (2017) Physicochemical characterization of representative firewood species used for cooking in some Colombian regions. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2017, 1–13
Durán JR, Burbano OI, Arturo C, Valens V (2014) Comportamiento agroindustrial de diez variedades de caña de azúcar para producción de panela en Santander, Colombia Agro industrial yield of ten sugar cane varieties for production of panela in Santander, Colombia. Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol Agropecu 15:183–195
Fukushima NA, Palacios-Bereche MC, Palacios-Bereche R, Nebra SA (2019) Energy analysis of the ethanol industry considering vinasse concentration and incineration. Renew Energy 142:96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.085
García CA, Morales M, Quintero J, Aroca G, Cardona CA (2017) Environmental assessment of hydrogen production based on Pinus patula plantations in Colombia. Energy 139:606–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.012
Gonzáles Chavarro F, Cabezas Gutiérrez M, Ramírez-Gómez M, Ramírez Durán J (2018) Macronutrient absorption curves in three varieties of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for Panela in the Hoya del Río Suarez. Rev. U.D.C.A Actual. Divulg. Científica 21, 395–404
Gutiérrez-Mosquera LF, Arias-Giraldo S, Ceballos-Peñalosa AM (2018) Energy and Productivity Yield Assessment of a Traditional Furnace for Noncentrifugal Brown Sugar (Panela) Production. Int J Chem Eng 1–10
Harris ZM, Milner S, Taylor G (2017) Biogenic Carbon—Capture and Sequestration. Greenh. Gas Balanc Bioenergy Syst 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101036-5.00005-7
Hunter KA, Liss PS, Surapipith V, Dentener F, Duce R, Kanakidou M, Kubilay N, Mahowald N, Okin G, Sarin M, Uematsu M, Zhu T (2011) Impacts of anthropogenic SOx, NOx and NH3 on acidification of coastal waters and shipping lanes. Geophys Res Lett 38:2–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047720
ISO (2006) International Standard 14044:2006. Environ. Manag. - Life cycle assessement - Requir. Guidel. ISO 14044, Int. Organ. Stand. 2006, 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0297-3
Jader R, Fabián V, John E, Sebastián E, Oscar M (2018) Thermal performance evaluation of production technologies for non-centrifuged sugar for improvement in energy utilization. Energy 152:858–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.127
Jaffe WR (2015) Nutritional and functional components of non centrifugal cane sugar: A compilation of the data from the analytical literature. J Food Compos Anal 43:194–202
Jakkamputi LP, Mandapati MJK (2016) Improving the performance of jaggery making unit using solar energy. Perspect Sci 8:146–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.04.019
Kumar M, Sundaram S, Gnansounou E, Larroche C, Thakur IS (2018) Carbon dioxide capture, storage and production of biofuel and biomaterials by bacteria: A review. Bioresour Technol 247:1059–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.050
Lazzerini G, Manzini J, Lucchetti S, Nin S, Nicese FP (2022) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration from Conventional and Organic Olive Tree Nurseries in Tuscany, Italy. Sustain 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416526
Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Samson R (2013) Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. J Ind Ecol 17:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x
Majlesi S, Juutilainen J, Kasurinen A, Mpamah P, Trubnikova T, Oinonen M, Martikainen P, Biasi C (2019) Uptake of Soil-Derived Carbon into Plants: Implications for Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Environ Sci Technol 53:4198–4205. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06089
Manjare A, Hole J (2013) Exhaust Heat Recovery of Jaggery Making Furnace. Int J Sci Res 5:1349–1351
Mendieta O, Castro L, Escalante H, Garfí M (2021) Low-cost anaerobic digester to promote the circular bioeconomy in the non-centrifugal cane sugar sector: A life cycle assessment. Bioresour Technol 326:124783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124783
Mohammadi-Kashka F, Pirdashti H, Tahmasebi-Sarvestani Z, Motevali A, Nadi M, Aghaeipour N (2023) Integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) with boundary line analysis (BLA) to reduce agro-environmental risk of crop production: a case study of soybean production in Northern Iran. Clean Technol Environ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02464-9
Moreno J, Cobo M, Barraza C, Nestor S (2022) Role of low carbon emission H2 in the energy transition of Colombia: Environmental assessment of H2 production pathways for a certification scheme. Energy Convers Manag X 16:100312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100312
Moreno L, Medina O, Rojas AL (2022) Mucilage and cellulosic derivatives as clarifiers for the improvement of the non-centrifugal sugar production process. Food Chem 367:130657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130657
Ortiz C, Solano D, Villada H, Mosquera S, Velasco R (2011) Extracción y secado de floculantes naturales usados en la clarificación de jugos de caña. Biotecnol. en el Sect. Agropecu y Agroindustrial 9:32–40
Parascanu MM, Kaltschmitt M, Rödl A, Soreanu G (2020) Life cycle assessment of electricity generation from combustion and gasification of biomass in Mexico Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics (IUE), Hamburg. Sustain. Prod. Consum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.021
Parascanu MM, Sanchez N, Sandoval-Salas F, Carreto CM, Soreanu G, Sanchez-Silva L (2021) Environmental and economic analysis of bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses and agave juice. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15471-4
Powar RV, Mehetre SA, Powar TR, Patil SB, Ghatge JS, Patil YV (2022) Life Cycle Assessment-Based Comparison of Sugar and Jaggery Production: A Case Study from Western Maharashtra, India. sugar Technol 24:551–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-01046-7
Quirós R, Villalba G, Gabarrell X, Muñoz P (2015) Life cycle assessment of organic and mineral fertilizers in a crop sequence of cauliflower and tomato. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:3299–3316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-015-0756-7
Ramírez-Durán J, Insuasty-Burbano O, Murcia-Pardo M (2014) Variedad de caña de azúcar empleadas para la agroindustria panelera de Colombia. Barbosa, Santander
Ramírez Gil JG (2016) Characterization of traditional production systems of sugarcane for panela and some prospects for improving their sustainability. Rev Fac Nac Agron 70:8045–8055. https://doi.org/10.15446/rfna.v70n1.61763
Rodríguez Borray GA, Huertas Carranza B, Polo Murcia SM, González Chavarro CF, Tauta Muñoz JL, Rodríguez Cortina J, Ramírez Durán J, Velásquez Ayala FA, Espitia González JJ, López Zarazá RA (2020) Modelo productivo de la caña de azúcar (Saccharum officinarum) para la producción de panela en Cundinamarca. Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaría, Mosquera, Colombia
Rosa PAL, Galindo FS, Oliveira CE da, Jalal S, Mortinho A, Fernandes ES, Marega GC, Buzetti EMR, Teixeira Filho S (2022) M.C.M., Inoculation with Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Reduce Phosphate Fertilization Requirement and Enhance Technological Quality and Yield of Sugarcane. Microorganisms 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010192
Sanchez N, Ruiz R, Rödl A, Cobo M (2021a) Technical and environmental analysis on the power production from residual biomass using hydrogen as energy vector. Renew Energy 175:825–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.145
Sanchez N, Ruiz R, Rödl A, Cobo M (2021b) Data Br 37:107194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107194. Life cycle inventory data for power production from sugarcane press-mud
Shiralkar KY, Kancharla SK, Shah NG, Mahajani SM (2014) Energy for Sustainable Development Energy improvements in jaggery making process. Energy Sustain Dev 18:36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.11.001
Shonnard DR, Klemetsrud B, Sacramento-Rivero J, Navarro-Pineda F, Hilbert J, Handler R, Suppen N, Donovan RP (2015) A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Liquid Transportation Biofuels in the Pan American Region. Environ Manage 56:1356–1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0543-8
Sierra D, Cubillos-Varela A, Franco C (2022) Analysis of sugarcane production and transportation in Hoya del Río Suárez from a life cycle perspective. Clean Technol Environ Policy 24:3303–3315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02380-4
Su D (2020) Sustainable product development. Tools, Methods and Examples, World Cement. Nottingham. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351282482-12
Thongjoo C, Miyagawa S, Kawakubo N (2005) Effects of soil moisture and temperature on decomposition rates of some waste materials from agriculture and agro-industry. Plant Prod Sci 8:475–481. https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.8.475
Tyagi SK, Kamboj S, Himanshu, Tyagi N, Narayanan R, Tyagi VV (2022a) Technological advancements in jaggery-making processes and emission reduction potential via clean combustion for sustainable jaggery production: An overview. J Environ Manage 301:113792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113792
Tyagi SK, Tyagi N, Himanshu H, Kamboj S, Agarwal KK, Sharma U, Tyagi VV (2022b) Emission reduction and fuel-saving potentials in jaggery industry via cleaner combustion. Int J Ambient Energy 43:4728–4743. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2021.1914726
Zhao X, Teng Z, Wang J, Ma X, Sun Y, Gao R, Xu F, Zhang Q, Wang W (2022) Barrierless HNO3 formation from the hydrolysis reaction of NO2 with Cl atom in the atmosphere. Atmos Environ 270:118871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118871

No competing interests reported.

SupplementaryMaterialPaperpanela20062023.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Environmental implication of the production of non-centrifugal sugar in the Colombian Andean region

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Data acquisition

2.2. Process description and simulation

2.3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)

2.3.1. Goal and scope definition

2.3.2. Life cycle inventory

2.3.2.1 Sugarcane cultivation

2.3.2.2 non-centrifugal sugar production

2.3.2.3 Animal feed

2.3.2.4 Transport of raw materials

2.3.2. Life cycle impact assessment

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Mass and energy balance

3.1. Life cycle inventory

3.1.1. Fertilizers consumption and emissions

3.1.2. Non-centrifugal sugar production

3.2. Life cycle impact assessment

3.2.1. Carbon footprint

3.2.2. Other environmental impacts

3.2.3. Sensitive analysis

4. Conclusions

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Contribution

Acknowledgment

Data availability

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1