Economic Evaluation of the Environmental Impacts of Juice Production: A Case Study of Pomegranate Juice

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• L. Behrooznia ¹
• M. Khojastehpour ²
• H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha ³

¹ PhD Student, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

² Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

³ Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2023.82678.1170

Abstract

Introduction
Pomegranate has gained global popularity due to its high vitamin content and antioxidant properties, attracting fans worldwide. The processing of pomegranate into various products, including pomegranate juice, has become a thriving industry. However, this processing requires significant energy and chemicals—most of which are derived from fossil fuels. The combustion of these fuels releases harmful gases, contributing to global warming, environmental damage, and health risks. The costs tied to these environmental burdens are often overlooked, neglecting the principles of environmental sustainability. Therefore, it is vital to assess the monetary value of the environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of pomegranate juice production. This research aims to investigate the costs imposed on society, including the social costs of carbon emissions, damage costs from air pollution, and costs associated with environmental prevention measures related to processing pomegranate juice. Feel free to ask for further changes or adjustments.
Materials and Methods
This study focuses on assessing the environmental impact and associated costs generated during the processing of pomegranate juice in Mashhad, Iran, from 2022 to 2023. The research examines the case study of Saman Bazar Razavi Co. to conduct an environmental impact cost assessment. The study begins by evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the pomegranate juice production process using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The costs related to these impacts are then estimated by multiplying the impact amounts with predetermined monetary coefficients. The study adopts a system boundary that extends from the arrival of the fruit at the factory to the departure of the packaged juice, defining a 160g pack of pomegranate juice as the functional unit (FU). SimaPro software, version 9, is utilized for analyzing the environmental impacts. The evaluation of environmental impact costs encompasses three categories: social costs of carbon emissions, damage costs from air pollution, and costs for environmental prevention measures. Carbon dioxide emissions are considered to assess social costs, while five other gases—nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia vapor—are included in investigating air pollution damage costs. Furthermore, the calculation of environmental prevention costs takes into account seven impact categories: global warming, photochemical oxidation, respiratory inorganic effects, human toxicity, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, and acidification.
Results and Discussion
Here’s the edited text with corrections marked: The investigation reveals that the production of pomegranate juice emits approximately 0.12 kg CO₂ eq of carbon, with a social cost of $0.0062 per functional unit. The primary contributors to carbon emissions are natural gas and electricity. Furthermore, the evaluation of air-polluting gases indicates a total cost of $0.021 for air pollution damage. Among the five considered gases, ammonia vapor, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides incur the highest damage costs. The assessment of environmental prevention costs demonstrates a total calculated cost of $0.026, with the impact categories of global warming and acidification making the most substantial contributions of 59% and 28%, respectively. This finding suggests that the majority of costs for preventing damage in pomegranate juice production should be focused on mitigating the effects of global warming. The consumption of natural gas and electricity during the pomegranate juice production process is the main source of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Additionally, in terms of acidification, the contributions of pomegranate, electricity, apple, natural gas, and sugar are noteworthy. Based on these findings, it is evident that the resources used in pomegranate juice processing, derived from fossil fuels, have the most significant impact on environmental damage. Therefore, one practical method to prevent the creation of these pollutants is the utilization of alternative bioproducts produced from biomass. Considering the substantial amount of pomegranate waste generated after juice processing,which is often not utilized; these wastes can be effectively employed to produce bioenergy, such as biogas. This approach not only prevents waste disposal but also offers economic and environmental benefits.
Conclusion
This article provides an overview of the environmental impacts and associated costs of pomegranate juice production in Mashhad. Using the life cycle assessment approach, the study calculates the environmental impacts per functional unit (a 160g juice pack) and estimates the corresponding costs. The results indicate that the social cost of carbon emissions, the total damage costs of air pollution, and the total environmental prevention costs per functional unit are $0.0062, $0.021, and $0.026, respectively. These costs should be allocated to mitigating the environmental damage caused by pomegranate juice production in the region.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to Ferdowsi University of Mashhad for funding this research (Grant No. 54189).

Keywords

• Environmental costs
• Environmental impact
• Life cycle assessment
• Pomegranate juice

Main Subjects

• Agricultural systems engineering (greenhouse, fish farming, mushroom production)

©2024 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

1. Awuni, S., Adarkwah, F., Ofori, B. D., Purwestri, R. C., Huertas Bernal, D. C., & Hajek, M. (2023). Managing the challenges of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in Ghana. Heliyon, 9(5), e15491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15491
2. Badakhshan, N., Shahriar, K., Afraei, S., & Bakhtavar, E. (2023). Determining the environmental costs of mining projects: A comprehensive quantitative assessment. Resources Policy, 82, 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103561
3. Behrooznia, L., Sharifi, M., Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H. (2019). Estimation of energy consumption and environmental ECO-costs of compost production from municipal solid waste in Rasht. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 50(1), 43-55. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20084803.1398.50.1.4.6
4. Chang, F., Fabian-Wheeler, E., Richard, T. L., & Hile, M. (2023). Compaction effects on greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from solid dairy manure. Journal of Environmental Management, 332, 117399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117399
5. Chen, C., Pinar, M., & Stengos, T. (2022). Renewable energy and CO₂ emissions: New evidence with the panel threshold model. Renewable Energy, 194, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.095
6. Čuček, L., Klemeš, J. J., & Kravanja, Z. (2015). Chapter 5- Overview of environmental footprints. In J. J. Klemeš (Ed.), Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (pp. 131–193). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00005-1
7. de Jesús Vargas‐Soplín, A., Prochnow, A., Herrmann, C., Tscheuschner, B., & Kreidenweis, U. (2022). The potential for biogas production from autumn tree leaves to supply energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions– A case study from the city of Berlin. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 187, 106598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106598
8. (2019). Air quality damage cost guidance. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London.
9. Dilling, L., Doney, S. C., Edmonds, J., Gurney, K. R., Harriss, R., Schimel, D., Stephens, B., & Stokes, G. (2003). The role of carbon cycle observations and knowledge in carbon management. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 521-558. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.011503.163443
10. Ecocostsvalue. (2022). ecocostsvalue.com
11. El Barnossi, A., Moussaid, F., & Iraqi Housseini, A. (2021). Tangerine, banana and pomegranate peels valorisation for sustainable environment: A review. Biotechnology Reports, 29, e00574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00574
12. Esmaeilpour Troujeni, M., Emadi, B., Khojastehpour, & M., Vahedi, A. (2014). Analysis of energy flow in pomegranate fruit production- case study: Behshahr city. The first national conference on new and clean energy management. Hamadan. https://civilica.com/doc/307957
13. Fathollahi, H., Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Akram, A., & Rafiee, S. (2018). Comparative energy, economic and environmental analyses of forage production systems for dairy farming. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 852-862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.073
14. Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H., Kaab, A., & Rafiee, S. (2020). Application of life cycle analysis to assess environmental sustainability of wheat cultivation in the west of Iran. Energy, 193, 116768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116768
15. Gigliotti, M., Schmidt-Traub, G., & Bastianoni, S. (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals. In B. Fath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ecology (Second Edition) (Second Edi, pp. 426-431). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10986-8
16. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Aghbashlo, M., & Tabatabaei, M. (2021). Life cycle assessment of bioenergy product systems: a critical review. E-Prime, 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prime.2021.100015
17. (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.
18. (2006). 14040 International standard. Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and Framework, International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
19. Khanali, M., Kokei, D., Aghbashlo, M., Nasab, F. K., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., & Tabatabaei, M. (2020). Energy flow modeling and life cycle assessment of apple juice production: Recommendations for renewable energies implementation and climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118997
20. Khezri, M., Heshmati, A., & Khodaei, M. (2022). Environmental implications of economic complexity and its role in determining how renewable energies affect CO₂ Applied Energy, 306, 117948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117948
21. Kiba, T., & Krapp, A. (2016). Plant Nitrogen Acquisition Under Low Availability: Regulation of Uptake and Root Architecture. Plant and Cell Physiology, 57(4), 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcw052
22. Korberg, A. D., Skov, I. R., & Mathiesen, B. V. (2020). The role of biogas and biogas-derived fuels in a 100% renewable energy system in Denmark. Energy, 199, 117426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117426
23. Landgraf, M., Zeiner, M., Knabl, D., & Corman, F. (2022). Environmental impacts and associated costs of railway turnouts based on Austrian data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 103, 103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103168
24. Lavoro, A., Falzone, L., Gattuso, G., Salemi, R., Cultrera, G., Leone Marco, G., Scandurra, G., Candido, S., & Libra, M. (2021). Pomegranate: A promising avenue against the most common chronic diseases and their associated risk factors (Review). International Journal of Functional Nutrition, 2(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijfn.2021.16
25. Li, H., Xie, S., Zhang, X., Xia, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wang, L. (2021). Mid-pregnancy consumption of fruit, vegetable and fruit juice and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: A correlation study. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN, 46, 505-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.08.033
26. Li, X., Hussain, S. A., Sobri, S., & Md Said, M. S. (2021). Overviewing the air quality models on air pollution in Sichuan Basin, China. Chemosphere, 271, 129502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129502
27. Longo, S., Mistretta, M., Guarino, F., & Cellura, M. (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of organic and conventional apple supply chains in the North of Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 654-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.049
28. McIntosh, A., & Pontius, J. (2017). Chapter 1- Tools and Skills. In A. McIntosh & J. Pontius (Eds.), Science and the Global Environment (pp. 1–112). Boston: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801712-8.00001-9
29. Melgarejo, P., Núñez-Gómez, D., Legua, P., Martínez-Nicolás, J. J., & Almansa, M. S. (2020). Pomegranate (Punica granatum) a dry pericarp fruit with fleshy seeds. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 102, 232-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.014
30. Mora, C., Spirandelli, D., Franklin, E. C., Lynham, J., Kantar, M. B., Miles, W., Smith, C. Z., Freel, K., Moy, J., Louis, L. V, Barba, E. W., Bettinger, K., Frazier, A. G., Colburn IX, J. F., Hanasaki, N., Hawkins, E., Hirabayashi, Y., Knorr, W., Little, C. M., …, & Hunter, C. L. (2018). Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 8(12), 1062-1071. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0315-6
31. Morales-Mora, M. A., Rosa-Dominguez, E., Suppen-Reynaga, N., & Martinez-Delgadillo, S. A. (2012). Environmental and eco-costs life cycle assessment of an acrylonitrile process by capacity enlargement in Mexico. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 90(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2011.10.002
32. Nandi, S., Ahmed, S., & Khurpade, P. D. (2023). Chapter 5- Anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste for biogas and other biofuels. In S. A. Mandavgane, I. Chakravarty, & A. K. Jaiswal (Eds.), Fruit and Vegetable Waste Utilization and Sustainability (pp. 101–119). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91743-8.00007-1
33. Nemecek, T., & Kagi, T. (2007). Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent v2. 0 No. 15. Swiss center for life cycle inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
34. Ng, K. H., Lai, S. Y., Jamaludin, N. F. M., & Mohamed, A. R. (2022). A review on dry-based and wet-based catalytic sulphur dioxide (SO₂) reduction technologies. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 423, 127061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127061
35. O’Shea, R., Lin, R., Wall, D. M., Browne, J. D., & Murphy, J. D. (2020). Using biogas to reduce natural gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at a large distillery. Applied Energy, 279, 115812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115812
36. Papong, S., Rewlay-ngoen, C., Itsubo, N., & Malakul, P. (2017). Environmental life cycle assessment and social impacts of bioethanol production in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 254-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.122
37. Pinto, E. P., Perin, E. C., Schott, I. B., Düsman, E., da Silva Rodrigues, R., Lucchetta, L., Manfroi, V., & Rombaldi, C. V. (2022). Phenolic compounds are dependent on cultivation conditions in face of UV-C radiation in ‘Concord’ grape juices (Vitis labrusca). LWT, 154, 112681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112681
38. Rahil, A., Gammon, R., Brown, N., Udie, J., & Mazhar, M. U. (2019). Potential economic benefits of carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduction due to renewable energy and electrolytic hydrogen fuel deployment under current and long term forecasting of the Social Carbon Cost (SCC). Energy Reports, 5, 602-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.05.003
39. Rennert, K., Errickson, F., Prest, B. C., Rennels, L., Newell, R. G., Pizer, W., Kingdon, C., Wingenroth, J., Cooke, R., Parthum, B., Smith, D., Cromar, K., Diaz, D., Moore, F. C., Müller, U. K., Plevin, R. J., Raftery, A. E., Ševčíková, H., Sheets, H., …, & Anthoff, D. (2022). Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature, 610(7933), 687-692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9
40. Singh, N. V., Parashuram, S., Sharma, J., Potlannagari, R. S., Karuppannan, D. B., Pal, R. K., Patil, P., Mundewadikar, D. M., Sangnure, V. R., Parvati Sai Arun, P. V, Mutha, N. V. R., Kumar, B., Tripathi, A., Peddamma, S. K., Kothandaraman, H., Yellaboina, S., Baghel, D. S., & Reddy, U. K. (2020). Comparative transcriptome profiling of pomegranate genotypes having resistance and susceptible reaction to Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.07.023
41. (2023). Statistics of Ministry of Agriculture Jahad, Iran.
42. Staudt, A., Huddleston, N., & Kraucunas, I. (2008). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights of National Academies Reports. https://www.preventionweb.net/quick/3915
43. Talekar, S., Patti, A. F., Vijayraghavan, R., & Arora, A. (2018). An integrated green biorefinery approach towards simultaneous recovery of pectin and polyphenols coupled with bioethanol production from waste pomegranate peels. Bioresource Technology, 266, 322-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.072
44. Vogtlander, J. (2010). LCA-based assessment of sustainability: the Eco-costs/Value Ratio EVR.
45. Vogtländer, J. G., Bijma, A., & Brezet, H. C. (2002). Communicating the eco-efficiency of products and services by means of the eco-costs/value model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00013-0
46. Wang, C., Luo, D., Zhang, X., Huang, R., Cao, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, Y., & Wang, H. (2022). Biochar-based slow-release of fertilizers for sustainable agriculture: A mini review. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 10, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2022.100167
47. Zarei, M. J., Kazemi, N., & Marzban, A. (2019). Life cycle environmental impacts of cucumber and tomato production in open-field and greenhouse. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 18(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.07.001
48. Zhang, Q., Zhu, J., Mulder, J., Wang, Q., Liu, C., & He, N. (2023). High environmental costs behind rapid economic development: Evidence from economic loss caused by atmospheric acid deposition. Journal of Environmental Management, 334, 117511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117511
49. Zhao, S., Deng, K., Zhu, Y., Jiang, T., Wu, P., Feng, K., & Li, L. (2023). Optimization of slow-release fertilizer application improves lotus rhizome quality by affecting the physicochemical properties of starch. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22(4), 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2023.01.005