ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF NON-FOOD 

USE OF BRASSICA CARINATA

S. Fahd1



, G. Fiorentino1, S. Mellino1, G. Rótolo2and S. Ulgiati1

1.Department of Sciences for the Environment, Parthenope University, Napoli, Italy

2.National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA), Oliveros Agriculture Experimental 

Station, Argentina

ABSTRACT

The perspective of this study is to identify non-food crops that fit the Mediterranean basin 

region and assess the economic, energetic and environmental feasibility of their conversion 

into bioenergy and biochemicals. Large research efforts are being displayed for evaluating the 

potential use of non-food crops for production of energy, textiles, health and beauty products, 

pharmaceuticals, packaging and other industrial applications. The implementation of biomassbased agro-industrial systems (biorefineries) is believed to contribute to maintaining 

employment and creating new jobs in rural areas, avoiding land abandonment and further 

urbanization. 

The focus of our attention was on the possible employment of marginal lands degraded by 

previous uses. In particular, Brassica carinata, a non-food crop, was selected for Southern 

Italy. In an earlier study, we found that the net energetic gain of converting both Brassica 

seeds and residues to energy use was small and not sustainable from the economic viewpoint. 

Therefore, the biorefinery concept was considered as a hypothesis to be further explored in 

order to provide innovative use of marginal land and additional income to farmers. The results 

obtained are promising, although further studies are needed for full assessment of the 

environmental impact and energy cost of production.

Keywords: biorefinery, energy accounting, non-food crops, Brassica carinata.

1. INTRODUCTION

The promotion of non-food crops on marginal lands has started one decade ago, in order to 

prevent competition for arable land in food production. Many specialty crops have already 

been investigated for their production capacity of non-food oils or high lignocellulosic 

biomass yield. The choice of specialty oil crops for further development depends on different 

geographical locations and potential use of products and by-products. In this context, it was 

suggested that the development of non-food crops is important on set-aside land or marginal 

land. Our selection of land use is based on the integration of GIS data (spatially continuous) 

with data derived from the agricultural census (spatially discrete). 

We designed two cropping processes in two equal portions of marginal land, one to be 

dedicated to cropping for energy and one to support a biorefinery project. In Fahd et al., 2010, 

 

 Corresponding Author. Tel : + 39 3342969292. Email: sandra.fahd@uniparthenope.it
we assessed the feasibility of cropping for energy in marginal land of the Campania region, 

selecting land polluted by previous uses (industrial or landfill use). Due to the pollution of 

land, no uses were possible other than energy use (combustion). Results demonstrated that 

although an energy return was in principle possible in the ratio of about 2:1, the whole 

process was unfeasible from the economic point of view, investment costs being four times 

higher than saved oil value (due to the low market price of oil). The economic costs of the 

agricultural phase are dominating, accounting for more than 90% of the total investment 

(Fahd et al., 2010). This indicates that the search for any economic improvement of energy 

cropping must address the agricultural step, the others being almost negligible. When all 

factors are accounted together, the option of cropping for energy on marginal land becomes 

much less attractive than claimed by some. 

The aim of this study is to evaluate a different scenario for energy and biochemicals 

production in a biorefinery framework from dedicated crops, still in Campania region. The 

only difference is the choice of land, that is now identified as marginal, but not polluted, so 

that the chemicals extracted can be used without risk for human health. The challenge is to 

prove the feasibility of an agro-industrial activity capable to generate economic, energy, and 

environmental advantages from a multiple use of the photosynthetic process. An added value 

may be found in exploiting the information content of biopolymers and biochemicals, instead 

of just burning them as no value substrates. In addition to the potential economic value of 

such products, their replacement energy value is also worth being explored.

1.1 The biorefinery concept

Biomass and, in particular, plant-based raw materials are gaining more and more attention as 

an alternative option to shrinking fossil reserves, as feedstocks for industrial production, for 

both the energy and non-energy use, including chemicals and materials (EC, 2004). The term 

“biorefinery” was established in the 1990s to indicate a system that produces useful products, 

using a renewable resource like biomass as input, in comparison to petroleum refinery where 

fossil fuels are used to generate power, fuels and chemicals (Schilling, 1995). Therefore, a

biorefinery aims at the optimum exploitation of biomass resources in order to generate final 

products able to replace energy carriers and material products derived from fossil/nonrenewable sources, thus implementing the much needed transition towards a more sustainable 

society.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Brassica carinata. Products and uses.

Plants belonging to the genus Brassica are of great economic and nutritional importance and 

include crops widely used for oil extraction. Brassica oil production occupies the fourth 

position in volume in the world after soybean oil, palm seed oil, and cottonseed oil, and it is 

the most important oilseed crop in Europe (FAO, 2002). Recently, countries like Spain, 

Greece, and Italy, with regions characterized by semi-arid climates, are showing interest in 

the exploitation of Brassica carinata for production of biodiesel and solid biomass. This crop 

represents an interesting source of non-food raw resources either for energy (liquid biofuels 

from seeds) and high value-added biochemicals from straw and press cakes, perfectly fitting 

with the biorefinery concept (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Schematic flow chart of a biorefinery system based on Brassica carinata.

2.1.1 Seeds

The oil derived from the defatted seeds of Brassicaceous plants, characterized by a high 

content in erucic acid, is of no interest for food purposes but has found several applications 

including the production of biofuels. It can also be applied as a basic material for 

biolubricants (in tannery industry) or to produce via saponification the erucic acid that 

represents a building block for organic synthesis and production of plastics and polymers 

(Lazzeri et al., 2008).

2.1.2 Cake meal

The defatted meal that is left after oil extraction is rich in proteins, although its use for human 

nutrition presents some problems because it also contains antinutritional components such as 

glucosinolates and phytates, as well as a high cellulose content. For this reason, the Brassica 

defatted meal is only used for animal feeding and as an organic fertilizer. Protein isolates (PI) 

are frequently prepared from defatted meals by solubilization of proteins in alkaline media 

and precipitation at the isoelectric point. This protocol allows for separation of proteins from 

non-protein components such as sugars, fiber and antinutritional chemicals. High 

temperatures and organic solvents used during the process of oil extraction may cause 

denaturation of proteins, reducing protein solubility and extraction yields and consequently 

impairing other functional properties.

Proteins represent the main component of defatted meal (38.9%). The amino acid composition 

of the proteins of B. carinata meal is balanced in all essential amino acids. Fiber is the second 

most abundant component in B. carinata defatted meal, with a value of 31.8%. The presence 

of glucosinolates is one of the main characteristics of Brassicaceae. In the defatted meal 

glucosinolates represent 5.1%. Glucosinolates and the products that are released after their 

hydrolysis are considered antinutritional factors, since they reduce the availability of iodine. 

As glucosinolates, phytic acid (3.1% of the defatted meal) has been traditionally considered 

an antinutritional factor by decreasing the availability and adsorption of minerals. Among 

minor components, noticeable is the presence of polyphenols (0.3%), considered 

antinutritional factors as well, but with attractive antioxidant properties. 

2.1.3 Agricultural Residues

Herbaceous agricultural residues represent a major source of lignocellulosic material with 

considerable potential for use in biomass-to-ethanol renewable energy schemes (Ballesteros et 

al., 2002). Lignocellulose materials consist of three primary chemical fractions or precursors: 
(a) hemicellulose/polyoses, sugar polymer of predominantly pentoses, (b) cellulose, a glucose 

polymer and (c) lignin, a polymer of phenols. In particular, furfural and 

hydroxymethylfurfural are interesting products. Furfural is the starting material for the 

production of Nylon 6,6 and Nylon 6. Lignin can generate fuel, adhesives or binders. About 

21% of B. carinata dry matter consists of substances that can be extracted by means of 

organic solvents and water. Cellulose and lignin content (32.7 and 18.7%, respectively) are in 

the range reported for lignocellulosic biomass of food crops, whilst the hemicellulose fraction 

(hemicellulosic-derived sugars are xylose/arabinose/mannose/galactose) comprises 21.9% of 

raw material, xylose being the main sugar component (82%).

2.2 The assessment method

The biodiesel is obtained as oil from the crushing of the seeds and then refined through a 

transesterification process in order to render it more compatible with combustion in a diesel 

engine. The main process is therefore based on three main phases starting with the 

agricultural production and ending up with chemical conversion to biodiesel. The transport of 

seeds to the biodiesel plant for processing was also included in the assessment, as an 

intermediate step.

The process evaluation focused on the main four steps (agricultural production, transport of 

seeds to the conversion plant, oil extraction and finally biodiesel production 

(transmetilesterification). Each step was investigated under a multiplicity of points of view, 

within a multi-method framework named SUMMA (SUstainability Multi-scale Multi-method 

Assessment; Ulgiati et al, 2006), jointly based on assessing material demand (Schmidt-Bleek, 

1993; Hinterberger and Stiller, 1998; Ritthoff et al., 2003; Bargigli et al., 2005), embodied 

energy (Slesser, 1974; Herendeen, 1998; Cleveland and Costanza, 2008), emergy (a measure 

of environmental support; Odum, 1988, 1996; Ulgiati et al., 1995; Brown and Ulgiati, 1999; 

Brown and Ulgiati, 2004) and emission flows (CORINAIR, 2007; US-EPA, 2010; Leiden, 

2000). In so doing, a comprehensive evaluation of each step and final results is achieved at 

local and global scales. Here we only show the calculation procedure used for the embodied 

energy evaluation (Table 1 and Table 2).

2.2.1 The embodied energy method. 

The commercial energy invested into the whole chain of processes that lead from extraction 

and processing of raw materials and resources to the final product(s) via crop production, 

harvesting, transport and conversion is calculated by firstly performing an inventory of all 

input energy and matter flows to the agricultural and industrial processes. Input flows are then 

multiplied by suitable conversion coefficients which express the unit energy demand 

“embodied” in each flow. Such coefficients are available in published embodied energy and 

Life Cycle Assessment literature. The embodied energy assigned to each input flow (i.e. the 

commercial energy used up to make that flow) is calculated according to the following 

equation: E =  fi x ci i= 1,..., n Equation (1)

where:

E= embodied energy

fi = i-th input flow of matter or energy

ci= embodied energy coefficient of the i-th flow (from literature or calculated in this work).

In this study, each input flow is multiplied by a suitable oil equivalent intensity (amount of 

conventional commercial oil required to generate one unit of product), to yield the total oil 

equivalent demand and its heat content. Oil equivalent is converted to heat units by 

multiplying by 41860 J/goil. Summing up the embodied energy values of all input flows in all 
process steps we calculated the total energy invested into the process, i.e. the total energy cost 

of the product through energy cropping. The method focuses on fuels and electricity, 

fertilizers and other chemicals, machinery, and assets supplied to the process in terms of the 

oil equivalent energy required to produce them, expressed in energy units per physical unit of 

good or service delivered (for instance, MJ per kg of steel). The method is concerned with the 

depletion of fossil energy, and therefore all process inputs of material and energy that do not 

require the use of fossil and fossil equivalent resources are not accounted for.

3 RESULTS

Table 1 shows the calculation procedures concerning the embodied energy of Brassica 

carinata production and conversion while Table 2 deals with the industrial phase. Tables yield 

the energy intensities (energy invested per unit of product) of intermediate and final products. 

In the presence of more than one product (straw and seeds; oil and press cake; etc) input flows 

are allocated to the product according to their percentage energy content. 

Table 1. Energy flows in the Agricultural and Transport phase.

Description of flow Unit Raw Amount 

(ha-1yr -1)

Energy 

Intensity 

Factor 

(g oil eq. 

unit-1)

Ref.

Oil Eq. 

Demand 

(g oil eq. 

ha-1yr-1)

Energy 

Demand

(J ha-1

yr-1)

Agricultural phase

Imported Input

Diesel and heavy fuel g 7.74E+04 1.23 [a] 8.48E+04 3.55E+09

Additional Energy (heavy fuel oil) for diesel 

refining g 1.61E+04 1.23 1.64E+04 6.88E+08

Fertilizers

Nitrogen (N) g 5.41E+04 1.75 [a] 9.48E+04 3.97E+09

Phosphate (PO4) g 2.00E+04 0.32 [a] 6.40E+03 2.68E+08

Agricultural Machinery

steel and iron g 3.15E+02 0.91 [b] 2.86E+02 1.20E+07

aluminium g 5.37E+01 5.36 [b] 2.88E+02 1.20E+07

rubber and plastic material g 3.84E+00 3.00 [a] 1.15E+01 4.82E+05

fraction of copper g 1.15E+01 2.21 [c] 2.54E+01 1.06E+06

Seeds g 8.00E+03 5.86E+02 2.45E+07

Total Energy Demand 2.04E+05 8.52E+09

Products and by-products (with allocation according to energy content)

Seeds produced - dry matter g 1.20E+06 0.07 [d]

Straw (d.m., 30% left in soil) g 2.38E+06 0.05 [d]

Transportation Phase

Seeds produced g 1.20E+06 0.07 [d] 8.80E+04 3.68E+09

Steel for transport machinery g 4.32E+02 1.91 [a] 8.25E+02 3.45E+07

Diesel for transport g 9.00E+02 1.23 [a] 1.11E+03 4.64E+07

Total Energy Demand 8.99E+04 3.76E+09

Products transported to the gate of the plant

Seeds delivered g 1.20E+06 0.07

[a]: Biondi et al., 1989; [b]: Bargigli, 2002; [c]: Our calculation from energy intensity data; [d]: Our calculation 

performed in this study.

Results highlight the following preliminary aspects:

a) Energy costs increase with manufacturing. All indicators increase with further processing 

steps, including those for co-products, due to the allocated contribution from previous 
steps. It must be noted that, since allocation of inputs was made according to the energy 

content in each co-product, the performance indicators per unit of energy delivered are the 

same for the co-products of each step, while the indicators per unit of mass delivered 

(shown in the Tables) and unit economic value generated are always different.

b) Energy demand: It takes only 0.07 g oil equivalent to make one g of seeds. The 

requirement is much higher for Brassica oil (0.29 g oil equiv) and for biodiesel (0.51 g). 

The final results is that half a gram of oil is invested to generate 1 g of oil equivalent 

energy. This means that the net energy delivered to society is only 50% of the total yield 

and that two hectares are needed in order to make one “net hectare”. 

Table 2. Energy flows for Industrial Phase.

Description of flow Unit

Raw 

Amount 

(ha-1yr -1)

Energy 

Intensity 

Factor 

(g oil eq. 

unit-1)

Ref.

Oil Eq. 

Demand 

(g oil eq. 

ha-1yr-1)

Energy 

Demand

(J ha-1yr-1)

Brassica oil extraction and refining phase

Seeds delivered g 1.20E+06 0.07 [d] 8.99E+04 3.76E+09

Electricity J 1.04E+09 9.95E-05 [e] 6.24E+04 2.61E+09

Natural gas g 3.64E+04 1.66 [f] 4.34E+04 1.82E+09

Additional energy for natural gas refining g 5.20E+03 1.66 [f] 6.20E+03 2.59E+08

Hexane g 3.41E+03 1.32 [g] 4.50E+03 1.88E+08

Infrastructure

Stainless steel g 1.45E+02 1.91 [a] 2.77E+02 1.16E+07

Steel g 2.77E+02 1.91 [a] 5.29E+02 2.22E+07

Cement g 7.39E+02 0.11 [a] 8.13E+01 3.40E+06

Total Energy Demand 2.07E+05 8.68E+09

Products and by-products (with allocation according to energy content)

Brassica oil g 3.96E+05 0.29 [d]

Brassica meal or pellets g 6.96E+05 0.13 [d]

Transesterification biodiesel production

Brassica oil g 3.96E+05 0.29 [d] 1.16E+05 4.85E+09

Electricity J 1.79E+08 9.95E-05 [e] 1.07E+04 4.47E+08

Natural gas g 1.36E+04 1.66 [f] 1.62E+04 6.77E+08

Additional energy for natural gas refining g 1.94E+03 1.66 [f] 2.31E+03 9.67E+07

Methanol g 5.66E+04 1.03 [h] 5.82E+04 2.44E+09

Acid (hydrochloric acid) g 1.19E+04 n.a. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Catalyst (sodium hydroxide NaOH) g 8.73E+03 n.a. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Infrastructure

Iron g 5.46E+00 0.91 [b] 4.97E+00 2.08E+05

Steel g 9.11E+02 1.91 [a] 1.74E+03 7.28E+07

Cement g 2.64E+02 0.11 [a] 7.25E+02 3.04E+07

Water g 3.11E+05 1.31E-04 [i] 4.09E+01 1.71E+06

Total Energy Demand 2.06E+05 8.61E+09

Products and by-products (with allocation according to energy content)

Biodiesel g 3.88E+05 0.51 [d]

Glycerin g 3.88E+04 0.22 [d]

[a]: Biondi et al., 1989; [b]: Bargigli, 2002; [c]: Our calculation from energy intensity data; [d]: Our calculation 

performed in this study; [e]: Our calculation from Boustead and Hancock, 1979; [f]: Boustead and Hancock, 

1979; [g]: Value equal to Gasoline from Biondi et al, 1989; [h]: Boustead and Hancock, 1979; [i]: Our 

calculation from energy costs of common materials

The energy costs of production of seeds, straw, seed oil, press cake, biodiesel, and glycerin 

are the starting points for a more complete evaluation of the final biorefinery products. 
Further energy is invested to extract value-added chemicals out of straw and press-cake in a 

next industrial step. Such evaluation is still in progress. 

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR A BIOREFINERY SCENARIO

The land allocated to agricultural purpose in Campania region has been steadily decreasing 

over years (ISTAT, 2006). If we subtract from the land available in 1985, the still available 

agricultural land in 2006 together with the polluted land and the urbanised areas, we reach a 

figure of 155,000 ha missing within the statistics. These lands are no more accounted for as 

agricultural production sites. They are very likely land abandoned because they do not 

provide enough income to the owner.

Assuming that we can crop Brassica carinata in part of the missing marginal lands (43183 

ha) of the region and that all the products (biodiesel) and co-products (straw and press cake) 

are used respectively for energy and as a source of biochemicals and biomaterials, we can 

calculate if these products are potentially capable to provide a suitable income to the farmer. 

The amount of hectares indicated was purposefully chosen in order to compare with the 

results of cropping a similar amount of marginal land for energy purpose in Fahd et al., 2010. 

Yield, energy and economic costs can be considered the same in the two designs, while the 

value of the output (only energy in the previous study or energy + biorefinery products in the 

present study) is different and depends on the market value of biochemicals and polymers as 

well as on their energy replacement value.

In Table 3 we show data about (a) the percentage of material that can be extracted from each 

specific by-product, (b) the total amount of products that can theoretically be obtained per ha 

cropped with Brassica in Campania Region, and (c) the total mass of each product obtained 

by cropping the same number of hectares used in the companion study (Fahd et al., 2010). 

A large amount of biomass is available and only four products are significant from the point 

of view of mass and economic value:

 Biodiesel, which is the main product from the seeds;

 Proteins, major constituents of the cake meal;

 Glucose, from the cellulosic fraction of the agricultural residues;

 Xylose, from the hemicelluloses fraction of the agricultural residues.

Other products are also available, e.g. lignin, the market value of which is smaller or not yet 

defined. However, all of them may be part of a global biorefinery design. The total value of 

biorefinery products would be roughly 150 million euro. Since production and extraction have 

a non-negligible cost, the latter must be subtracted from the total value of products, in order to 

ascertain the real economic feasibility. 

The total cost for the production and of seeds, straw, biodiesel and cake meal can be obtained 

from Fahd et al (2010), where an equivalent amount of marginal land is assumed to be 

cropped with Brassica for energy purpose. 
Table 3. Bio-products from marginal land in Campania Region.

Products and byproducts

Percentage 

of 

extraction

Mass of product 

(kg ha-1yr-1)

Total mass from 

43183 ha of 

Brassica 

(kg yr-1)

Market 

Price 

(€ kg-1)

Reference 

for price

Total value 

(€)

Seeds (from Brassica) 1200.00 5.18E+07

Oil (from seeds) 33.0% 396.00 1.71E+07

Lubrificants (*) 6.0% 23.76 1.03E+06 0.88 [a] 9.03E+05

Biodiesel (*) 98.0% 388.08 1.68E+07 0.78 [a] 1.31E+07

Glycerin (10 % 

from biodiesel) 10.0% 38.81 1.68E+06 0.11 [a] 1.76E+05

Erucic Acid (*) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Plastics & 

polymers (from 

euricid acid)

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Cake Meal (from 

seeds) 58.0% 696.00 3.01E+07

Proteins (^) 39.0% 271.44 1.17E+07 1.60 [b] 1.88E+07

Fibers (^) 31.8% 221.33 9.56E+06 0.11 [c] 1.05E+06

Glucosinates (^) 5.1% 35.50 1.53E+06 0.00E+00

Soluble sugar (^) 5.7% 39.67 1.71E+06 2.40 [b] 4.11E+06

Others materials 

(^) 18.4% 128.06 5.53E+06

Agricultural residues (from 

Brassica) 3400.00 1.47E+08

Cellulose (°)

Glucose 32.5% 1105.00 4.77E+07 0.30 [d] 1.43E+07

Hemicellulose (°)

Xylose 18.0% 612.00 2.64E+07 3.50 [e] 9.25E+07

Galactose 1.5% 51.00 2.20E+06 n.a.

Arabinose 1.2% 40.80 1.76E+06 n.a.

Mannose 1.2% 40.80 1.76E+06 n.a.

Lignin (°) 18.7% 635.80 2.75E+07 0.20 [f] 5.49E+06

Others materials 

(°)

Ash 5.2% 176.80 7.63E+06

Extractives 20.9% 710.60 3.07E+07

Total economic income from biorefinery chain 1.50E+08

(*) from oil; (^) from cake meal; (°) from agricultural residues

[a] www.icipricing.com; [b]Average value Kamm et al., 2008; [c] Our calculation from Houtman, 1997; [d] 

Kamm et al., 2008; [e] Murthy et al., 2005; [f] www.bioeconomyconference.org

Table 4. Economic balance between the total economic investment for biorefinery chain and 

total production income.

Total economic investment for energy purpose €/yr 2.87E+07

Cost for biorefinery plant €/yr 4.26E+07

Total cost (a) €/yr 7.13E+07

Economic income from biorefinery chain (b) €/yr 1.50E+08

Net economic (b-a) €/yr 7.90E+07

Ratio b/a 2.11
5 CONCLUSIONS 

Brassica carinata (and other crops with similar or better characteristics in terms of yield and 

cultural practices required) is suitable to be used in a biorefinery production chain. Generating 

energy alone is not an economically profitable production pattern, although we demonstrated 

(Fahd et al 2010) that the output/input energy ratio is close to 2:1. All by-products, not only 

energy, must be included to reach an acceptable performance in economic terms. A 

prerequisite is, however, the choice of crops that require low agricultural input, favor soil 

organic matter conservation, do not require irrigation and excess fertilisers. 

If additional income from biorefinery products is achieved (also depending on market 

acceptance before becoming saturated), a small production of biodiesel from oil seeds is also 

possible and useful. Although bioenergy cannot be the main target of non-food cropping in 

marginal land, it could help achieve the process energy self-sufficiency. Furthermore, while 

bioenergy has a major difficult competitor in still cheap fossil fuels, a biorefinery chemistry is 

suitable to generate a large and diverse amount of chemical products, in so overcoming the 

possible demand saturation for some specific chemicals or biomaterials.

Products that are suitable for being used according to their information content (polymers, 

chemicals), i.e. according to the structure created by the photosynthetic process, should not be 

burnt as fuels, but must become the building blocks of innovative chemical patterns, 

alternative to fossil chemistry. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the European 

Commission within the 7th Framework Program, Project no.217213, SMILE - Synergies in 

Multi-scale Inter-Linkages of Eco-social systems. Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities 

(SSH) Collaborative Project FP7-SSH-2007-1.

References

Ballesteros, J.M. Oliva, M.J. Negro, P. Manzanares, M. Ballesteros. Enzymic hydrolysis of steam exploded 

herbaceous agricultural waste (Brassica carinata) at different particule sizes. Process Biochemistry 38 

(2002) 187-192.

Bargigli S., 2002. Tesi di Dottorato (Ph.D. Thesis). Analisi del Ciclo di Vita e Valutazione di Impatto 

Ambientale della Produzione ed uso di Idrogeno Combustibile.

Bargigli, S., Raugei, M., and Ulgiati, S., 2005. Mass flow analysis and mass-based indicators. In: Handbook of 

Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health. Sven E. Jorgensen, Robert Costanza, and FuLiu Xu Editors. Pp. 353-378. CRC Press, 2005.

Biondi P., Panaro V., Pellizzi G., 1989. Le Richieste di Energia del Sistema Agricolo Italiano. CNR, Consiglio 

Nazionale delle Ricerche, Progetto Finalizzato Energetica, Sottoprogetto Biomasse ed Agricoltura, Report 

LB-20, Roma, Italia.

Boustead I., Hancock G.F., 1979. Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & 

Sons Inc.

Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy Evaluation of the Biosphere and Natural Capital. Ambio, 28(6): 

486-493.

Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Emergy evaluation of an integrated bioenergy production 

system. The case study of Enköping (Sweden). In: Brown M.T., Campbell D., Comar V., Haung S.L., 

Rydberg T., Tilley D., Ulgiati S. (Eds.), EMERGY SYNTHESIS 6. Theory and Applications of the 

Emergy Methodology. H.T. Odum Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, 

Florida, USA, January 12, 2010. (In press).

Cleveland, C., and Costanza, R., 2008. Energy return on investment (EROI). In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. 

Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science 

and the Environment). www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)
CORINAIR, 2007. EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook – 2007; 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/

Davis Clement, L. and Van Dyne, D. L. 2006. The Lignocellulosic Biorefinery-A strategy for Returning to a 

Sustainable Source of Fuels and Industrial Organic Chemicals. In : Kamm B., Gruber P.R. and Kamm M., 

Biorefineries – Industrial Processes and Products (Status Quo and Future Directions),Volume I, WileyVCH, 2006.

Fahd, S., Mellino, S., and Ulgiati, S., 2010. Energy Cropping in Marginal Land: Viable Option or Fairie Tale? 

In: D. Pimentel (Editor), Global Economic and Environmental Aspects of Biofuels. Taylor and Francis 

Publisher, In press.

Herendeen R. 1998. Embodied Energy, embodied everything... now what? In: Proceedings of the 1st 

International Workshop Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy, 13-48/642. 

MUSIS, Roma, Italy.

Herendeen R.A., 1998. Embodied Energy, embodied everything...now what? In: Advances in Energy Studies. 

Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Herendeen R.A., and 

Mayumi K. (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp. 13-48.

Hinterberger F. and Stiller H., 1998. Energy and Material Flows. In: Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows 

in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Herendeen R.A., and Mayumi K. 

(Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp.275-286.

Lazzeri, L., O. Leoni, L. D’Avino, L. Malaguti. Biorefinery – Brassicaceous plants as more than biofumigants! 

Third International Biofumigation Symposium. CSIRO Discovery Centre, Canberra, Australia (2008).

Leiden, 2000. CML2 - Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, NL. 

http://www.pre.nl/simapro/impact_assessment_methods.htm#CML2

Lichtenthaler F., 2006. The Key Sugars of Biomass : Availability, Present non-Food Uses and Potential Future 

Development Lines. In: Kamm B., Gruber P.R. and Kamm M., Biorefineries – Industrial Processes and 

Products (Status Quo and Future Directions),Volume II, Wiley-VCH, 2006.

Murthy G.S., Sridhar, S., Shyam, M., Sunder, Shankaraiah, B., Ramakrishna, M. 2005. Concentration of xylose 

reaction liquor by nanofiltration for the production of xylitol sugar alcohol. Separation and Purification 

Technology 44 (2005) 205–211. 

Odum H.T., 1988. Self organization, transformity and information. Science, 242: 1132-1139.

Odum H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & 

Sons, N.Y.

Ritthoff, M., Rohn, H., and Liedtke, C., 2003. Calculating MIPS. Resource Productivity of Products and 

Sources. Wuppertal Institut for Climate, Environment and Energy – Science Centre North RhineWestphalia. ISBN 3-929944-56-1e. Pp.53. 

Schilling, L.B. Chemicals from alternative feedstock in the United States. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 16 

(1995) 1001-1110.

Schmidt-Bleek, F., 1993. MIPS re-visited. Fresenius Environ. Bull.2, 407–412. 

Slesser, M., 1974. Energy analysis workshop on methodology and conventions. Report IFIAS No. 89. 

Stockholm: International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study.

Ulgiati S., Raugei M., and Bargigli S., 2006. Overcoming the inadequacy of single-criterion approaches to Life 

Cycle Assessment. Ecological Modelling, 190: 432–442.

Ulgiati S., 2001. A Comprehensive Energy and Economic Assessment of Biofuels: When “Green” Is Not 

Enough. Critical Reviews in Planet Science, 20 (1), pp. 71-106.

Ulgiati, S., Brown, M.T., Bastianoni, S., and Marchettini, N., 1995. Emergy based indices and ratios to evaluate 

the sustainable use of resources. Ecological Engineering, 5(4), 519-531.

Ulgiati, S., Raugei, M. and Bargigli S., 2006. Overcoming the inadequacy of single-criterion approaches to Life 

Cycle Assessment. Ecological Modelling, 190: 432–442.

US-EPA, 2010. Compilation of Air Pollutants Emission Factors, Volume I, Fifth Edition, Point Sources AP-42. 

U.S.A. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/

www.bioeconomyconference.org/conf2005/Presentations/Tom_Robb.pdf