Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF 1l OF MILK

F. Falconi *, G. Olivieri*, R. Pergreffi*, E. Aradeo**, P. Neri***, R. Bombardieri****


*SPINNER c/o ENEA- C.R."E.Clementel" (Bologna, Italy),
francesca.falconi@bologna.enea.it - **graduated of University of Bologna (Italy) -
***ENEA C.R."E.Clementel" (Bologna, Italy) - ****Granarolo S.p.A. (Bologna, Italy)
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine the total life cycle of In recent years the concept of sustainability and the stable
idea to evaluate the effects of human activity or MILK

Introduction
production and processing of milk, in order to quantify the
potential environmental impact, and to compare two types of product manufacture on the Environment has fodder PRODUCTION dung
packaging: HDPE bottle and Tetra Brick Aseptic. The functional increased. In this sense Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (farm)
is a method internationally accepted to examine the silage
unit selected is 1 l of packaged liquid milk, the systems
boundaries consider the breeding of cows, the thermic treatments whole impact associated to activities or products.
of milk (homogenizing, centrifugation, pasteurizing and LCA has been defined as a process to estimate the
environmental effects associated with a product, Transport to
sterilization), and its packaging until the final disposal of the pack. factory
process, or activity by identifying and quantifying
To assess the milk LCA we have considered data from Simapro energy and materials used and wastes released into HDPE
database, from an Italian company (Granarolo S.p.a.) and from the environment, and to identify and evaluate Thermic bottle
an Italian farm, the inventory is calculated on the basis of its opportunities to reduce environmental damages. The MILK
treatment
annual production. In the study the analysis refers principally to dairy industry is an example of a factory PROCESSING PACKAGING
the method Eco-Indicator 99, but two others methods has been characterised by the association of different Pasteurization (dairy)
used to compare the results and to demonstrate the analogies: production systems: agriculture, livestock, dairy TetraBrick
EPS 2000 and EDIP 96. We consider also the Function of the milk farming, dairy packaging and product distribution.
production because of its importance in human alimentation. This study concerns the valuation of environmental
impact of the production of 1l of Italian milk UHT, and Transport
the comparison between two types of packaging: to sale
HDPE bottle and Tetra Brick Aseptic. The system
analysed in this study is shown in Fig.1 where the
Fig.1.- Schematic flow chart of the life cycle of milk.
main stages of the process are represented in blocks.
MATERIALS & METHODS
The standardization of LCA methodologies has been done by SETAC (Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) and “ISO” (International Standard Organisation) who has developed a series of
standard: the ISO 14040 based on life cycle assessment.
The LCA methodology includes four stages: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis (LCI), impact assessment (LCIA) and interpretation of results.
Goal and scope definition: this stage explains the reasons because it has been done LCA. It describes the system analysed and the principal parameters: functional unit (defined as the quantified
performance of a product system used as a reference unit in LCA study) system boundaries, allocation rules and quality data.
Inventory analysis: the LCI consists of the collection of data and concerns: the resource use, energy consumption, emissions and products resulting from each activity in the production system.
Impact assessment: the purpose of this phase is to consider the LCI results to understand their environmental importance. LCIA classifies the inputs and outputs of the inventory into specific categories,
and it models the inputs and outputs for each category into an aggregate indicator.
Interpretation of results: the life cycle interpretation is a procedure to identify, qualify, check and evaluate the information from the results of the LCI and/or LCIA of a product system.

Results & Discussions


In the analyse of the total life cycle of 1l of milk (production, processing and packaging), the crucial element has been identified in the milk production, especially in the agricultural phase for the animal
food. In fact the greatest environmental impact is taken by the breeding of cows, in particular for the fertilizing used in the cultivation of lucern and maize for the fodder.
In the Damage Assessment (Fig.2) are shown the principally results.These results are specified in the Characterization of LCA (Fig. 3): in Human Health the impact category mainly damaged is
Respiratory Inorganics principally because of dust emissions, in Ecosystem Quality the impact category mainly damaged is Land Use principally because of the soil occupation in agricultural and in
Resources the impact category mainly damaged is Fossil Fuels principally because of crude oil consumption.

HUMAN HEALTH: the total impact is 1,45E-5 DALY, given for the
70,88% by milk production, in particular because of pesticides emission
in the soil (phenmedipham, metamitron, ecc.);
ECOSYSTEM QUALITY: the total impact is 5,4 PDF*m2y, given for the
72,21% by milk production, in particular because of land use in
agriculture;
RESOURCES: the total impact is 1,23 MJsurplus, especially because of
the consumption of crude oil in the operation of milk production and
processing, and because of the transports;
ENERGY: the total impact is 14,5 MJ, especially because of the
consumption of crude oil in the operation of milk production and
processing, and because of the transports.
Fig.2. -Damage Assessment of 1l milk. Fig.2. -Damage Assessment of 1l milk.

To render comparable the results of each category it has been done a normalisation of the damages. To give a numerical quantification to the normalisation it has been attributed a weight to these
damage categories (Fig.4).
TOTAL DAMAGE Weighting and Emissions

0,734 Pt
ECOSYSTEM QUALITY: 0,313 Pt
7% 9% Airbornemission
40% Waterborneemission

(42,69%) Emissiontosoil
Rawmaterial
35%

RESOURCES: 0,351 Pt (47,89%) 9% Nonmaterial emission

RESOURCES: 0,0691 Pt (9,425%)


Fig.5.-Emissions in all compartments.

Fig.6 .- Weighting of 1l milk, EPS 2000 and EDIP 96.

To verify the connection between the weighting and the emissions we analyse the scores attributable to each compartment: Airborne emission
Fig.4.- Weighting of 1l milk. (dust, NOx, CO2, etc.), Waterborne emission (Ni, Cd, metamitron, etc.), Emission to soil (metamitron, As, etc), Raw material (crude oil, natural gas,
coal, etc), and Non material emission (occupation as organic meadow, conversion to arable land, C14 to air, etc). this connection is shown in Fig.5.
The life cycle assessment has been valued with others two methods (EDIP 96 and EPS 2000) to show the differences in weighting are not excessive:
for example the difference between Eco-Indicator 99 and EDIP 96 (Fig.6) isn’t elevated: 0,734 Pt in Eco-Indicator 99 and 1,1 Pt in EDIP 96. In all the
three methods the greatest damage is given by milk production. .
An important phase of this study is the comparison between two types of packaging: HDPE bottle
(a new type of packaging) and Tetra Brick Aseptic. The HDPE bottle is composed by a particular
triple stratum: an external stratum of virgin HDPE (40%); a middle stratum of carbon black and Conclusions
ground (45%), and an internal stratum of virgin HDPE (15%). To study these two packaging we In this work LCA methodology has been applied to analyse milk production, its processing
have compared the operations of their preparation, filling of milk and transport to sale, to find the and its packaging. Milk production, specifically agricultural phase in the formulation of
less polluting packaging. By this comparison (analysed with Eco-Indicator 99) the impact of Tetra animal food at farm, has been identified as the crucial element. It is necessary to set up
Brick Aseptic packaging is smaller than HDPE, in fact the total weight of HDPE is 0,0315 Pt and improvement actions. In the phase of packaging, the second crucial element is packaging,
the total weight of TBA is 0,0237 Pt, with a reduction of 0,0078 Pt, equal to a reduction of 24% of the comparison of two different packages, has demonstrated that the Tetra Brick Aseptic
the damage. The lower impact of TBA is caused principally to the less amount of emission is a better package because of the reduction of environmental impacts. This study has
SENSITIVE ANALYSIS

(especially dust, NOx or SOx), these emissions in HDPE are greater because of plastic production been an important example of the possibility to estimate environmental impacts of a
system of production and to characterize actions to reduce these.
unit HDPE TBA

Total Pt 0.0315 0,0237 - Environmental management, “Life cycle assessment – Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis” UNI EN
r ISO14041, ottobre 1998
e - Environmental management, “Life cycle assessment – Life cycle impact assessment” UNI EN ISO 14042, marzo
Human Health Pt 0,0129 0,0069
f 2000
e - Environmental management, “Life cycle assessment – Life cycle interpretation” UNI EN ISO 14043, marzo 2000
Ecosystem Pt 0,00234 0,002 r - Prè Consultans B.V.Plotterweg 12, 3821 BB Amersfoort
Quality e
- “The Eco-indicator 99, Methodology Report”, PRé Consultants B.V., 17 April 2000, Second edition
Resources Pt 0,0162 0,00935 n
c - Bengt Steen CMP Report 1999:5, “A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product
development (EPS). Version 2000. Models and data of the default method.”, Chalmers University of Technology
e
s - “Environmental Assesment of Products. Volume 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in products
Fig.7- Weighting of packages.
development.”[Methodology and results from the EDIP programme (Environmental Design of Industrial Products)]”,
Henrik Wenzel, Michael Hauschild and Leo Alting; Chapman & Hall; 1997.
- “The European impact of dairy production in the EU:Practical options for the improvement of the environmental
impact.Brussels”, European Commission, 2002.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen