### ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF NON

- FOOD

USE OF BRASSICA CARINATA

S. Fahd 1  

### , G. Fiorentino 1 

### , S. Mellino 1



### , G. R ó tolo 2 

### and S. Ulgiati 1



### 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 biomass

based agro

- industrial systems (biorefineries) is believed to contrib ute 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

environm ental 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 ara ble 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 geographic al 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 (spatial ly 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 : + 39 334 2969292. Email: s andra.fahd@uniparthenope.i t

### 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 (combust ion). 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 m arket 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 agri cultural 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 with out 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 exploit ing 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 co ncept

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). T he 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 pow er, 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/non

renewable sources, t hus implementing the much needed transition towards a more sustainable society.

2. MATERIALS AND METHOD S

2.1 Brassica carinata. Products and uses.

Plants belonging to the genus Brassica are of great economic and nutritional importance and include crops w idely 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

T he 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 m aterial 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 lef t 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 Brass ica 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 allo ws 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 balanc ed 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 me al glucosinolates represent 5.1% . Glucosinolates and the products t hat 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 consi dered an antinutritional factor by decreasi ng 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 agricultur al 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 precurso rs:

### (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 fo r 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 lignoc ellulosic 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 compo nent (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 therefo re 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 proc ess 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 vi ew, 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 a l ., 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 flo w. 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 =  f i 

### x c i 

### i= 1,..., n Equation (1)

where: E= embodied energy

f i 

### = i

- th input flow of matter or energy

c i 

### = embodied energy coefficient of the i

- th flow (from literature or calculated in this work).

In th is study, each input flow is multiplied by a s uitable 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/g oil 

### . Summ ing 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. T he 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 co ncerned 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 concernin g 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 o ne product (straw and seeds; oil and press cake; etc) input flows are allocated to the product according to their percentage energy content.

Ta ble 1

. Energy flows in the Agricultural and Transport phase.

Description of flow Unit Raw Amount (ha - 1 yr - 1 ) E nergy

Intensity

Factor (g oil eq.

unit - 1 ) Ref. Oil Eq.

Demand (g oil eq.

ha - 1 yr - 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 Ene rgy 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 inc rease 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

cont ent 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 equiva lent 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 - 1 yr - 1 ) Energy

Intensity

Factor (g oil eq.

unit - 1 ) Ref. Oil Eq.

Demand (g oil eq.

ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Energy

Demand (J ha - 1 yr - 1 )

Brassica oil extraction and refining phase

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

Electrici ty 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)

Br assica 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 D emand 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 intensit y 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 en ergy 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 v alue

- added chemicals out of straw and press

- cake in a

next industrial step. Such evaluation is still in progress.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ON FOR A BIOREFINERY SCENARIO

The land allocated to agricultural purpose in Campania region has been steadily decreas ing 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 regi on 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 th e 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 th e 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.

I n 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, whic h 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 availabl e, 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), wh ere 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 by

products Percentage

of

extraction Mass of product

(kg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Total m ass 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 1.6 0 [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

Bra ssica) 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.

M annose 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



### T able 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 7.13 E+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 p attern, 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 sm all 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 ar e 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 a uthors 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.

R eferences 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 Fu

Liu 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. Eme rgy 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 Methodo logy. 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, Wiley

VCH, 2006. Fahd, S., Me llino, 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, e mbodied 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: Advan ces 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 i n 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 Technolog y 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 Liedtk e, C., 2003. Calculating MIPS. Resource Productivity of Products and Sources. Wuppertal Institut for Climate, Environment and Energy

– Science Centre North Rhine

Westphalia. 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 Comprehensi ve 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 sustaina ble 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