Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains
by
, and
Andrea Colantoni
1,*
,
Lucia Recchia
2, 
Guido Bernabei
1,
Mariateresa Cardarelli
3, 
Youssef Rouphael
4
and
Giuseppe Colla
1
1
Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis snc, Viterbo 01100, Italy
2
Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation, Guglielmo Marconi University, via Plinio 44, Roma 00193, Italy
3
Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria, Centro di ricerca Agricoltura e Ambiente (CREA-AA), via della Navicella 2-4, Roma 00184, Italy
4
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, via Università, 100, Portici 80138, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2017, 7(8), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7080062
Submission received: 16 June 2017
/
Revised: 24 July 2017
/
Accepted: 24 July 2017
/
Published: 27 July 2017
Abstract
:Protein hydrolysates are largely used as plant biostimulants for boosting crop growth, and improving crop tolerance to abiotic stresses and fruit quality. Protein hydrolysate-based biostimulants are mostly produced by chemical hydrolysis starting from animal wastes. However, an innovative process of enzymatic hydrolysis of legume-derived proteins has been recently introduced by few companies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the energy use and environmental impact of the production processes of enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate starting from lupine seeds and protein hydrolysate obtained from chemical hydrolysis of leather wastes through the application of life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA method was applied through the software GEMIS “Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems”, elaborated at L’Oko-Institute in Germany, and the parameters taken into account were: CO2 emissions in g per kg of protein hydrolysate; the consumption of fossil energy expressed in MJ per kg of protein hydrolysate; and water consumption reported in kg per kg of protein hydrolysate. In the case of legume-derived protein hydrolysate, the evaluation of the energy use and the environmental impact started from field production of lupine grains and ended with the industrial production of protein hydrolysate. In the case of animal-derived protein hydrolysate, the LCA method was applied only in the industrial production process, because the collagen is considered a waste product of the leather industry. The type of hydrolysis is the step that most affects the energy use and environmental impact on the entire industrial production process. The results obtained in terms of CO2 emissions, fossil energy consumption and water use through the application of LCA showed that the production process of the animal-derived protein hydrolysate was characterized by a higher energy use (+26%) and environmental impact (+57% of CO2 emissions) in comparison with the enzymatic production process of lupine-derived protein hydrolysate. In conclusion, the production of legume-derived protein hydrolysate by enzymatic hydrolysis is more environmentally friendly than the production of animal-derived protein hydrolysate through chemical hydrolysis.
1. Introduction
New agricultural strategies, such as the application of natural substances and/or beneficial microbials, have been evaluated as a means for reducing negative environmental impact and improving crop performance and sustainability under adverse ecological conditions [1,2]. As defined by the European Biostimulants Industry Council [3], plant biostimulants contain microorganism(s) and/or substance(s) whose function, when applied to plants or the rhizosphere, is to stimulate natural processes to enhance/benefit nutrient uptake, nutrient efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, and crop quality [4,5,6]. Protein hydrolysate-based biostimulants contain free amino acid, oligo and polypeptides achieved through enzymatic and/or chemical hydrolysis of proteins, especially from vegetal or animal sources [7,8,9,10,11,12,13].
Currently, 90% of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulants in the market are obtained from chemical hydrolysis of cattle leather wastes; while only 5–10% is from enzymatic hydrolysis of plant biomass, especially Leguminosae crops. Traditionally, chemical hydrolysis is achieved with strong acids (e.g., chloride acid), and extreme temperatures (>130 °C), and generally yields products with low agronomic quality, since some important amino acids (e.g., tryptophan) and peptides are destroyed during the production process [13]. One way of reducing losses of amino acids and peptides during the process would be through digestion of proteins with enzymes [14]. An enzymatic hydrolysis system obtains high quality protein hydrolysates [15,16,17] using specific enzymes and low temperatures (<60 °C). The enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysates from plant residues contain not only free amino acids, but also soluble peptides that act as signal molecules regulating a broad spectrum of physiological processes [18,19,20,21,22].
A process-based approach such as life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a methodology for comparing the energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use associated with protein hydrolysate production. The LCA approach applied for the comparison of production processes of hydrolysates from plant and animal origin would be a valuable tool for understanding the real convenience of the different industrial pathways. The results of the LCA will be a beneficial indication for industrial companies in order to evaluate the hydrolysis process efficiency, leading to the identification of more sustainable approaches. LCA method has been used successfully for evaluating the environmental impact of production processes in the field of food production [19,23,24,25]. However, no data are available on the environmental impact of production processes of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulants. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to apply an LCA approach for quantifying the energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water consumption associated with protein hydrolysate products starting from leather wastes or lupine seeds.
2. Materials and Methods
LCA Method
The work was carried out implementing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to the two production chains of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulants as reported in Figure 1.
The process to biostimulant production includes the following phases: (1) dry milling and grinding of seeds, or cutting of leather waste; (2) water extraction, where the seed flour or shredded leather waste is dispersed in acidified water (pH 4.5, 50 °C) for 6 hours to extract the soluble compounds; (3) filtration and centrifugation, where the protein concentrate is separated from the other organic compounds in a centrifuge decanter; (4) enzymatic or acid hydrolysis at 60 °C or 130 °C, respectively; (4) centrifugation, where the soluble compounds like amino acids and peptides are separated from the insoluble residual compounds; and (5) product concentration, where the soluble compounds are concentrated ca. 6 times through water evaporation in a mechanical vapor recompression evaporator.
With the aim of relating each input datum to the corresponding impact in terms of GHGE and fossil energy requirement, the biostimulant production chains were implemented in Gemis 4.7 software (Öko Institut, Berlin, Germany). The sources of the main up-stream processes are reported in Table 1: the majority of the processes are found in the Gemis database, with the only exception being protease enzyme, where emission factors taken from the scientific literature [20,21] were used.
The developed approach for the environmental evaluation of the two production chains is based on the fundamentals of the ISO 14040 and 14044, aiming to promote a simplified comparative and attributional LCA. The LCA is a developed, standardized primary tool for environmental assessments, and LCA evaluates, from the environmental point of view, all the resources and inputs needed for the system studied, and all the outputs from the system, which include emissions to air, water and soil. In this way, first indications about the environmental pressures on the production chains were obtained. Considering the quality of the inventory data and their level of uncertainty, in this phase, the simplified LCA was limited to the calculation of three specific indicators, i.e., the GHGE with unit the CO2 equivalent (CO2eq), the Cumulated Energy Requirement (CER) and the Water Use (WU). In particular, the CO2eq is a metric measure for comparing emissions from various GHGs on the basis of their global-warming potential (GWP) [22], the CER represents the fossil energy required for extracting, manufacturing and disposing raw and auxiliary materials all along each production chain; the WU is the sum of the fresh water used along all the production processes accounted in the LCA. The LCA method was applied for both production processes with reference to an output of 1 kg of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant.
The LCA was modeled using the input data reported in Table 2: the first one uses lupine seeds as a source of proteins, the second one uses leather wastes. The data for energy, material inputs and outputs for both protein hydrolysate production systems were obtained from the literature [26] and interviews with experts, such as production managers of companies dealing with the production of protein hydrolysates.
The lupine production was assessed based on data collected in [23,26]: an inventory of the agricultural data used in the LCA is reported in Table 2.
For the leather wastes, a specific analysis was carried out in order to calculate which impacts could be associated to these wastes. As reported in the COOP Environmental Product Declaration [21], beef meat production in Italy causes 23.8 kg CO2 eq/kg of bone-free meat. This value is consistent with similar processes modeled in Gemis 4.7 for Southern Europe. Moreover, the amount of leather is equal to 7.9%, whilst the meat and other edible parts are about 92.1%. Then, the leather is tanned and the solid wastes of the process are about 43% of the raw material input. Therefore, considering the above mass allocation ratios in different animal tissues, 1 kg of leather gave a CO2 emission of 0.958 kg CO2eq, an energy consumption of 3864 MJ and water use of 1562 kg. However, the emissions associated with leather waste were set to zero in the LCA analysis because this waste does not have any market value.
3. Results and Discussions
The calculated indicators demonstrated a lower impact for the production process based on the enzymatic hydrolysis of lupine seeds than for that based on chemical hydrolysis of leather waste. This result is mainly due to the different processes of hydrolysis, which requires higher temperature, pressure and chemical inputs in a chemical hydrolysis process in comparison to an enzymatic hydrolysis process. In Figure 2, the CO2 emission percentage for each production phase of enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysates from lupine grains is reported.
In Figure 3, the CO2 emission percentage for each production phase of chemically-produced protein hydrolysates from leather waste is reported.
The results of this study showed that the production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis of lupine seeds had the lowest environmental impact. In particular, the greatest differences in CO2 emissions between the production processes were observed in the hydrolysis phase (n. 4), with a saving of 57.03% using enzymatic hydrolysis (Figure 4). Concerning the energy consumption (Figure 5), enzymatic hydrolysis of lupine seeds required less energy in phase 4, while the opposite behavior was observed for phase 2 and 6, where the production of leather-derived protein hydrolysate by chemical hydrolysis reduced the energy needed by 8.5 and 13.1%, respectively.
4. Conclusions
Overall, the results demonstrated that the production of legume-derived protein hydrolysate by enzymatic hydrolysis is more environmentally friendly than the production of protein hydrolysate through chemical hydrolysis of leather waste.
Author Contributions
The contribution to the programming and executing of this research must be equally divided by the authors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Lotter, D.W. Organic agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 2003, 21, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Montalba, R. Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: An Agroecological Perspective. Sustainability 2017, 9, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Electron Beam Induced Current (EBIC). European Biostimulants Industry Council. 2013. Available online: http://www.biostimulants.eu/2013/04/2013-overview-of-the-european-biostimulants-market (accessed on 5 April 2013).
- Ghosh, A.; Anand, K.V.; Seth, A. Life cycle impact assessment of seaweed based biostimulant production from onshore cultivated Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty ex Silva—Is it environmentally sustainable? Algal Res. 2015, 12, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y. Biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hort. 2015, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Electron Beam Induced Current (EBIC). Promoting the Biostimulant Industry and the Role of Plant Biostimulants in Making Agriculture More Sustainable. Available online: http://www.biostimulants.eu/ (accessed on 5 April 2013).
- Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y.; Canaguier, R.; Svecova, E.; Cardarelli, M. Biostimulant action of a plant-derived protein hydrolysate produced through enzymatic hydrolysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lucini, L.; Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Canaguier, R.; Kumar, P.; Colla, G. The effect of a plant-derived protein hydrolysate on metabolic profiling and crop performance of lettuce grown under saline conditions. Sci. Hort. 2015, 182, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauffman, G.L.; Kneival, D.P.; Watschke, T.L. Effects of biostimulant on the heat tolerance associated with photosynthetic capacity, membrane thermostability, and polphenol production of perennial ryegrass. Crop. Sci. 2007, 47, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertani, A.; Cavani, L.; Pizzeghello, D.; Brandellero, E.; Altissimo, A.; Ciavatta, C.; Nardi, S. Biostimulant activity of two protein hydrolyzates in the growth and nitrogen metabolism of maize seedlings. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 17, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertani, A.; Pizzeghelio, D.; Altissimo, A.; Nardi, S. Use of meat hydrolyzate derived from tanning residues as plant biostimulant for hydroponically grown maize. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grabowsk, A.; Kunicki, E.; Sekara, A.; Kalisz, A.; Wojciechowska, R. The effect of cultivar and biostimulant treatment on the carrot yield and its quality. Veg. Crops Res. Bull. 2013, 77, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colla, G.; Nardi, S.; Cardarelli, M.; Ertani, A.; Lucini, L.; Canaguier, R.; Rouphael, Y. Protein hydrolysates as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 196, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuomisto, H.L.; Teixeira De Mattos, M.J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6117–6123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nagaraju, R.K.; Khera, J.G.; Nielsen, P.H. The Combined Bioblasting Concept: Save Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Water. Int. Dyer Tech. Brief. 2013, 4, 36–38. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, P.H.; Oxenbøll, K.M.; Wenzel, H. Cradle-to-Gate Environmental Assessment of Enzyme Products Produced Industrially in Denmark by Novozymes A/S. Int. J. LCA 2007, 12, 432–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. IPCC Third Assessment Report—Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Blonk, H.; Ponsioen, T.; Kool, A.; Marinussen, M. The Agri-Footprint Method Methodological LCA Framework, Assumptions and Applied Data; Blonk Milieu Advies: Gouda, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EPD Coop; Coop Beef Meat. CPC Code 2111 and 2113 Meat of Mammals Fresh, Chilled or Frozen, Approval Date: 2013–10–30, Registration Number: S-P-00495; COOP: Milan, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Notaricola, B.; Puig, R.; Raggi, A.; Tarabella, A.; Petti, L.; Rius, A.; Tassielli, G.; De Camillis, C.; Monelli, I. LCA of Italian and Spanish Bovine Leather Production Systems in an Industrial Ecology Perspective. In Proceedings of the ALCAS—5th Australian Life Cycle Assessment Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 22–24 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Amirkhani, M.; Netravali, A.N.; Huang, W.; Taylor, A.G. Investigation of Soy Protein Based Biostimulant Seed Coating for Broccoli Seedling and Plant Growth Enhancement. HortScience 2016, 51, 1121–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Bonini, P.; Colla, G. Synergistic Action of a Microbial-based Biostimulant and a Plant-Derived Protein Hydrolysate Enhances Lettuce Tolerance to Alkalinity and Salinity. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Giacinto, S.; Colantoni, A.; Cecchini, M.; Monarca, D.; Moscetti, R.; Massantini, R. Dairy production in restricted environment and safety for the workers. Ind. Aliment. 2013, 51, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
- De Martino, G.; Massantini, R.; Botondi, R.; Mencarelli, F. Temperature affects impact injury on apricot fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 25, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mencarelli, F.; Massantini, R.; Botondi, R. Physiological and textural response of truffles during low-temperature storage. J. Horticult. Sci. 1997, 72, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Recchia, L.; Sarri, D.; Rimediotti, M.; Boncinelli, P.; Vieri, M.; Cini, E. Environmental benefits from the use of the residual biomass in nurseries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 81, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Production processes of protein hydrolysates: enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from legume grains vs. chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste.
Figure 1.
Production processes of protein hydrolysates: enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from legume grains vs. chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste.
Figure 2.
CO2 emission percentages (on a total basis) for the industrial phases of enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from lupine grains.
Figure 2.
CO2 emission percentages (on a total basis) for the industrial phases of enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from lupine grains.
Figure 3.
CO2 emission percentages (on a total basis) for the industrial phases of chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste.
Figure 3.
CO2 emission percentages (on a total basis) for the industrial phases of chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste.
Figure 4.
CO2 emissions resulting from the difference between enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from lupine grains and chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste by industrial phase.
Figure 4.
CO2 emissions resulting from the difference between enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from lupine grains and chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste by industrial phase.
Figure 5.
Energy consumption resulting from the difference between enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from lupine grains and chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste.
Figure 5.
Energy consumption resulting from the difference between enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate from lupine grains and chemically-produced protein hydrolysate from leather waste.
Table 1.
Up-stream processes used for the LCA implementation of the two production chains of biostimulants.
Table 1.
Up-stream processes used for the LCA implementation of the two production chains of biostimulants.
| Up-Stream Production Chain | Source |
|---|---|
| N-fertilizer | Gemis 4.7—chem-inorgfertilizer-N-DE-2000 |
| P2O5-fertilizer | Gemis 4.7—chem-inorgfertilizer-P-2000 |
| K2O-fertilizer | Gemis 4.7—chem-inorgfertilizer-K-2000 |
| Pesticides | Gemis 4.7—chem-inorgpesticides-2000 |
| Agricultural diesel | Gemis 4.7—dieselmotor-EU-agriculture-2010 (end-energy) |
| Grid electricity | Gemis 4.7—grid-el-IT-2010-local |
| Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) | Gemis 4.7—chem-inorgphosphoric acid-DE-2000 |
| Hydrochloric acid (HCl) | Gemis 4.7—chem-inorgchlorine (membrane)-DE-2010ù |
| Protease enzyme | Nielsen et al., 2007; Nagaraju et al., 2013 |
| Fresh water | Gemis 4.7—extra-drinking waterDE-2000 |
| Heat (Natural gas boiler) | Gemis 4.7—gas-boiler-IT-2010 |
| Waste-water treatment | Gemis 4.7—waste-water treatment-DE-2005 |
Table 2.
Inventory data for agricultural phase of lupine grain production [23].
Table 2.
Inventory data for agricultural phase of lupine grain production [23].
| Output | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Yield | 2.7 | t/ha |
| Inputs | ||
| Seeds | 0.040 | kg/kglupine |
| Fertilizer-P2O5 | 45 | kg/ha |
| Fertilizer-K2O | 80 | kg/ha |
| Diesel | 84 | kg/ha |
| Electricity | 15 | kWh/ha |
Table 3.
Key characteristics of the production process of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant from lupine seeds (data refer to the production of 1 kg of protein hydrolysate).
Table 3.
Key characteristics of the production process of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant from lupine seeds (data refer to the production of 1 kg of protein hydrolysate).
| Key System Inventory Characteristics | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 (Dry Milling) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 33 |
| Phase 2 (Water Extraction) | ||
| Chemical inputs (mineral acid, H2SO4 or H3PO4) | g | 40 |
| Water | 0.7 | |
| Natural gas | W·h | 320 |
| Electricity | W·h | 15 |
| Phase 3 (Centrifugation) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 35 |
| Phase 4 (Enzymatic Hydrolysis at 60 °C for 6 h) | ||
| Chemical inputs (protease) | G | 11 |
| Water | L | 5 |
| Natural gas | W·h | 590 |
| Electricity | W·h | 55 |
| Phase 5 (Centrifugation) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 35 |
| Phase 6 (Concentration) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 300 |
Table 4.
Key characteristics of the production process of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant from leather waste (data refer to the production of 1 kg protein hydrolysate).
Table 4.
Key characteristics of the production process of protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant from leather waste (data refer to the production of 1 kg protein hydrolysate).
| Key System Inventory Characteristics | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 (Cutting) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 16 |
| Phase 2 (Water Extraction) | ||
| Chemical inputs | G | 115 |
| Water | 32 | |
| Natural gas (to keep the temperature at 90 °C for 1 h) | W·h | 377 |
| Electricity | W·h | 15 |
| Phase 3 (Centrifugation) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 35 |
| Phase 4 (Acid Hydrolysis at 130 °C for 4 h, and High Pressure 262 kPa) | ||
| Chemical inputs | G | 920 |
| Natural gas | W·h | 544.3 |
| Electricity | W·h | 70 |
| Phase 5 (Centrifugation) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 35 |
| Phase 6 (Concentration) | ||
| Electricity | W·h | 300 |
Table 5.
LCA results for protein hydrolysate production from lupine grains (data refer to the production of 1 kg protein hydrolysate).
Table 5.
LCA results for protein hydrolysate production from lupine grains (data refer to the production of 1 kg protein hydrolysate).
| Production phase | CO2eq Emissions (g/kg) | Fossil Energy (MJ/kg) | Water (kg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural phase | |||
| Seeds | 6.011 | 13.974 | 0.071 |
| Fertilizer-P2O5 | 18.984 | 0.278 | 0.132 |
| Fertilizer-K2O | 32.275 | 0.516 | 1.640 |
| Diesel | 96.601 | 1.286 | 0.006 |
| Electricity | 2.419 | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| Total (Agricultural phase) | 156.3 | 16.1 | 1.9 |
| Industrial phase | |||
| Dry milling | 14.182 | 0.194 | 0.026 |
| Electricity | 14.182 | 0.194 | 0.026 |
| Water extraction | 197.865 | 2.524 | 10.627 |
| Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) | 110.675 | 1.043 | 6.252 |
| Water | 0.254 | 0.004 | 0.638 |
| Heat (Natural gas boiler) | 80.490 | 1.389 | 3.725 |
| Electricity | 6.446 | 0.088 | 0.012 |
| Centrifugation (protein separation) | 15.041 | 0.205 | 0.028 |
| Electricity | 15.041 | 0.205 | 0.028 |
| Enzymatic hydrolysis | 215.852 | 3.561 | 11.666 |
| Protease enzyme | 42.000 | 0.650 | 0.200 |
| Water | 1.812 | 0.027 | 4.555 |
| Heat (Natural gas boiler) | 148.404 | 2.562 | 6.867 |
| Electricity | 23.636 | 0.323 | 0.044 |
| Centrifugation (hydrolysate separation) | 15.041 | 0.205 | 0.028 |
| Electricity | 15.041 | 0.205 | 0.028 |
| Concentration (water removal) | 128.924 | 1.760 | 0.241 |
| Electricity | 128.924 | 1.760 | 0.241 |
| Total (Industrial phase) | 586.9 | 8.4 | 22.6 |
| Total (Agricultural phase + Industrial phase) | 743.2 | 24.5 | 24.5 |
Table 6.
LCA results for protein hydrolysate production from leather wastes (data refer to the production of 1 kg protein hydrolysate).
Table 6.
LCA results for protein hydrolysate production from leather wastes (data refer to the production of 1 kg protein hydrolysate).
| Production phase | CO2eq Emissions (g/kg) | Fossil Energy (MJ/kg) | Water (kg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial phase | |||
| Cutting in pieces of 10–15 cm | 7.564 | 0.103 | 0.014 |
| Electricity | 7.564 | 0.103 | 0.014 |
| Water extraction | 474.166 | 5.382 | 56.679 |
| Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) | 350.010 | 3.297 | 19.773 |
| Water | 12.755 | 0.187 | 32.066 |
| Heat (Natural gas boiler) | 104.311 | 1.801 | 4.827 |
| Electricity | 7.091 | 0.097 | 0.013 |
| Centrifugation (protein separation) | 16.545 | 0.226 | 0.031 |
| Electricity | 16.545 | 0.226 | 0.031 |
| Acid hydrolysis | 874.513 | 17.247 | 59.719 |
| Hydrochloric acid (HCl) | 690.828 | 14.196 | 52.688 |
| Heat (Natural gas boiler) | 150.595 | 2.600 | 6.968 |
| Electricity | 33.091 | 0.452 | 0.062 |
| Centrifugation | 16.545 | 0.226 | 0.031 |
| Electricity | 16.545 | 0.226 | 0.031 |
| Concentration (hydrolysate separation) | 141.817 | 1.936 | 0.265 |
| Electricity | 141.817 | 1.936 | 0.265 |
| Waste-water treatment | 1.097 | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Total (Industrial phase) | 1532.2 | 25.1 | 116.8 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Colantoni, A.; Recchia, L.; Bernabei, G.; Cardarelli, M.; Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains. Agriculture 2017, 7, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7080062
AMA Style
Colantoni A, Recchia L, Bernabei G, Cardarelli M, Rouphael Y, Colla G. Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains. Agriculture. 2017; 7(8):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7080062
Chicago/Turabian StyleColantoni, Andrea, Lucia Recchia, Guido Bernabei, Mariateresa Cardarelli, Youssef Rouphael, and Giuseppe Colla. 2017. "Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains" Agriculture 7, no. 8: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7080062
APA StyleColantoni, A., Recchia, L., Bernabei, G., Cardarelli, M., Rouphael, Y., & Colla, G. (2017). Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains. Agriculture, 7(8), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7080062
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
