b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper

Energy, carbon and water footprints on agricultural

machinery

Edemilson J. Mantoam a, Graciele Angnes b, Mesfin M. Mekonnen c,

Thiago L. Romanelli b,*
a
Case Industry, Brazil
b
Laboratory of Systemic Management and Sustainability, Department of Biosystems Engineering, “Luiz de Queiroz”
College of Agriculture, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
c
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

article info
Agricultural machinery is crucial to agriculture because it enables field activities and
Article history: production in large scale. Through mechanisation, agriculture requires inputs such as fuel
Received 1 June 2020 and indirectly demands materials. Its impact can be assessed through energy, water and
Received in revised form carbon footprints. Some studies have updated indices for agricultural machinery, showing
21 August 2020 different results from those of the 1970s and 1980s. This study presents environmental
Accepted 27 August 2020 indices based on energy, carbon and water footprints for the life cycle of six types of
Published online 9 September 2020 agricultural machinery. The machines studied were tractors, sugarcane harvesters, coffee
harvesters, sprayers, planters and combiners. Inputs used directly (assembly phase) and
Keywords: for the maintenance phase have been taken into account. The total energy, carbon and
life cycle assessment water footprints were by multiplying the material flows by their respective energy em-
sustainability bodiments, consumed water and carbon footprints indices. Carbon steel accounted for the
environmental analyses highest share (30e70%) of energy demand, 45e79% of carbon footprint and 19e59% of
environmental impacts water footprint. However, the coffee harvester was an exception since it used nylon
mechanisation making it the machinery with the largest water footprint. Repair and maintenance
accounted for a smaller share of all footprints, except for the sugarcane harvester. The
water footprint was from 21 to 55 m3 for tractors and between 35 and 391 m3 for other
machines. Energy demand varied between 259 and 685 GJ to tractors and between 400 and
3500 GJ for other machines. The carbon footprint varied between 11 and 30 t CO2e for
tractors and between 27 and 176 tonne [CO2e] for other machines.
© 2020 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: edemilson.mantoam@cnhind.com (E.J. Mantoam), graciangnes@usp.br (G. Angnes), mesfin.mekonnen@ua.edu
(M.M. Mekonnen), romanelli@usp.br (T.L. Romanelli).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.08.019
1537-5110/© 2020 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2 305

with approximately 66,000 units of tractors, combine har-

Nomenclature vesters, cultivators and sugarcane harvesters (ANFAVEA,
2019).
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
As agriculture has modernised, mechanisation has saved
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
time for the productive process at all stages, from soil tillage to
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
harvesting, especially in large-scale production. Agricultural
PVC Poly vinyl chloride
modernisation increases profitability, but it also increases
WF Water footprint
energy demand, water use and other inputs, and also green-
GHG Greenhouse gas
house gas emissions (Keyes et al., 2015).
T1 Tractor 1
Increased demand for inputs through production pro-
T2 Tractor 2
cesses threatens sustainability, making ecosystems vulner-
T3 Tractor 3
^ gerskog et al., 2014), mainly due to potential pollution
able (Ja
T4 Tractor 4
of water and emission of greenhouse gases (Keyes et al., 2015).
BWFd Water footprint related to the direct inputs, m3
In addition, the production of agricultural machinery in-
CF Emissions carbon footprint, kg [CO2e]
creases indirect energy use and emissions by agriculture
CFIE Emissions total indicator per engine power kg
(Carmo et al., 2016). According to Dyer and Desjardins (2006),
[CO2e] kW
1
the energy required for the production of agricultural ma-
CFIL Emissions total indicator per life cycle, kg
chinery is almost as high as the fossil fuel energy consumed
[CO2e] h
1
during agricultural fieldwork.
CFIM Emissions total indicator per mass kg [CO2e]
Agricultural sustainability is approached in many ways,
kg
1
focusing on economic, environmental, and social indicators
EEIE Energy or emissions or water indicator by
individually or jointly (Lampridi et al., 2019). However, a
engine power, MJ kW
1; kg [CO2e] kW
1; l kW
1
complete quantitative assessment requires time and effort,
EEIL Energy or emissions or water indicator by life
which has often resulted in studies of environmental impact
cycle, MJ h
1; kg [CO2e] h
1; l h
1
being limited. In order to evaluate a production process, it is
EEIM Energy or emissions or water indicator by mass,
necessary to determine the material flows used in the product
MJ kg
1; kg [CO2e] kg
1; l kg
1
and those discharged as waste (Lampridi, Sorensen & Bochtis,
EF Energy footprint, MJ or GJ
2020). Physical quantities of materials involved in production
EFIE Energy indicator per engine power, MJ kW
1
and their energy flows have been used as the basis for deter-
EFIL Energy indicator per life cycle, MJ h
1
mining energy efficiency in a number of production processes
EFIM Energy indicator per mass, MJ kg
1
(Andrea et al., 2016; Spekken et al., 2015). Materials required in
EI Energy index, MJ kg
1; MJ l
1; MJ h
1
combination with parameters such as embodied energy, car-
EM Emissions of the material, kg [CO2e] kg
1 or kg
bon footprint, and water footprint can allow for a simplified
[CO2e] l
1
assessment of the environmental burden of a particular
EP Engine power, kW
product or production process (Mekonnen et al., 2018).
i ith Material i
Energy analyses consider the physical quantities involved
j jth Phase j
in the production processes, transforming them in terms of
LC Life cycle, h
energy by means of their energy content. However, many
MA Mass, kg
studies in the literature on agricultural machines are either
M Material mass, kg
obsolete and or based on the automotive industry (Berry &
MF Material flow, kg or l or h
Fels, 1972). More recently, Mantoam et al. (2014, 2016 and
wfd Water footprint in each of the direct inputs, m3
2017) used material flow to determine the energy indices for
unit
1
sugarcane harvesters, tractors (with different power levels)
WFIE Water footprint indicator per engine power, m3
and coffee harvesters. For energy demand, the values of
kW
1
Mantoam et al. (2014 and 2016) were higher than those of
WFIL Blue water footprint indicator per life cycle, m3
Berry and Fels (1972) and Deleage et al. (1979) that adapted
h
1
these indices taking into account different material quanti-
WFIM Water footprint indicator per unit mass, m3 kg
ties and proportions and comparing them to the automotive
industry.
The emission of gases can be assessed by the carbon
footprint, defined as “the total amount of carbon dioxide
emissions directly and indirectly caused by an activity or
1. Introduction accumulated over the life of the product” (Lombardi et al.,
2017). The carbon footprint is calculated as total direct and
Due to the growing demand for food, mechanisation has indirect CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions of a
become increasingly important for production to be carried given product, process or activity over its lifetime (Wu et al.,
out within the timeframe required by the cropping systems. In 2013). Carbon footprint is widely used to measure carbon
recent years, the adoption of machinery has increased in emissions in different sector and scales (Baldo et al., 2009)
some regions of the world. In Brazil, for example, agricultural such as industry (Cahill & Gallacho  ir, 2010), transportation
machinery production increased by 23.8% from 2017 to 2018, systems (Wu et al., 2013), municipal water cycles (Bakhshi &
306 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
Table 1 e Characteristics of the machines evaluated in the study.
Machine Power (kW)
Tractors: T1 55
T2 90
T3 172
T4 246
Sugarcane harvester I 260
Sugarcane harvester II 260
Coffee harvester 40
Self-propelled sprayer 147
Combine 325
Planter Pull-type
Monsabert, 2012), agriculture (Hassard et al., 2014) and biofuel
production (Hammond & Li, 2016). However, there are only a
few studies focusing on agricultural machinery (Dyer &
Desjardins, 2006; Mantoam et al., 2016 and 2017).
In addition, a major concern is water consumption, which
has been applied to a number of products around the world
using the concept of water footprint (Feng et al., 2011;
Hoekstra et al., 2011). Water footprint (WF) is an indicator of
direct and indirect appropriation of freshwater resources
along the production chain (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The blue
WF refers to the volume of surface and groundwater
consumed (evaporated) as a result of the production of a
good. In the agricultural sector, Mekonnen and Hoekstra
(2011) estimated the green, blue and grey WF of crops and
derived crop products. Mekonnen et al. (2018) determined the
WF of corn (maize) -based bioethanol in the USA and
sugarcane-based bioethanol in Brazil. However, in the pro-
duction of agricultural machinery, water demand has rarely
been assessed.
This study used energy, carbon, and water footprints to
evaluate the environmental load of six types of agricultural
machinery during their assembly, repair and maintenance
phases. This paper presents an overview of energy, carbon,
and water footprints in two phases of agricultural machin-
ery: assembly and maintenance. The information will be
useful in the selecting materials and processes that can
minimise environmental impact throughout the product life
cycle. Material and methods present the materials required
by each type of machine and how they are translated into
environmental impact on the energy, carbon and water
perspectives.
2. Material and methods
The study assessed the material flows of six kinds of agricul-
tural machinery and determined their energy, carbon and
water footprints for both assembly or maintenance phases.
2.1. Agricultural machinery characteristics and material
flows
The ten agricultural machineries assessed are described in
Table 1: four tractors, two sugarcane harvesters, a coffee
harvester, a self-propelled sprayer, a row crop planter (no-
tillage) and a self-propelled combine harvester.
Mass (kg) Lifecycle (h) Observation
2650 10,000 Rubber tyres
5100 10,000 Rubber tyres
6950 10,000 Rubber tyres
10,950 10,000 Rubber tyres
14.863 22,000 Rubber tyres
16,972 22,000 Rubber tyres
5600 6000 Rubber tyres
10,700 13,500 Rubber tyres
15,800 4680 Rubber tyres
5100 13 rows
To account for the energy, carbon and water footprints in
the supply chain, the material flows of the machinery were
determined. To do this, the materials of parts assembled need
to be identified. Given the importance of having the correct
material composition, the material flows obtained by
Mantoam et al. (2014, 2016 and 2017) were utilised and also
data from a factory producing agricultural machinery located
in Brazil (Table 2).
For all machinery, two phases were considered: the first
was assembly and second repair and maintenance (Fig. 1). For
the assembly phase, the material flows considered were those
directly used as inputs and divided between metallic mate-
rials, non-metallic materials and lubricants, and fluids. The
inputs directly used were the parts that make up the ma-
chines. Their identification and quantification was made
using technical data, which were registered in the database of
the machine manufacturer (raw material, mass and quantity).
For repair and maintenance phase the material flows
considered were inputs either directly and indirectly used.
The inputs used in the repair and maintenance were those
proposed by the owner’s manual and recommended by after-
sales teams. The parts used in the machines were grouped by
material classes, referring to the composition of the raw ma-
terial of each piece, such as carbon steel, cast iron, aluminium,
copper, rubber, plastic and others.
Machines are assembled on their own assembly line, thus
the amount of labour and time are different for every ma-
chine. However, labour and factory infrastructure were
excluded from the analysis due to the low significance of the
energy they embody. According to Mantoam et al. (2018) both
can safely be neglected because this magnitude represents
from 1% to 3% of the total energy embodied. Operational as-
pects such as fuel consumption and overall work rate were
also disregarded, because they may vary due to operator skill
and operating characteristics. Parts of the machinery that are
made of more than one component, were stratified in pro-
portion to the composition of the part. With the technical data
of each piece and the indexes obtained in the literature, it was
possible to calculate the environmental impact indicators
described below.
2.2. Energy footprint
To estimate the energy footprints of machinery the parts used
in the machines were grouped by classes of materials, refer-
ring to the composition of the raw material of each part.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2 307

Table 2 e Sources for environmental indicators for agricultural machinery.

Machine Energy footprint Carbon footprint Water footprint
Tractors T1, T2, T3 and T4 Mantoam et al. (2016) Mantoam et al. (2016) This study
Sugarcane harvester I and II Mantoam et al. (2014) This study This study
Coffee harvester Mantoam et al. (2017) This study This study
Combine This study This study This study
Planter This study This study This study
Self-propelled sprayer This study This study This study

Fig. 1 e Flow chart for the determination of the energy, carbon and water footprints during the life cycle of agricultural
machinery.

Physical inputs and outputs of different agricultural opera- After determining the total energy demand of the machine
tions were converted to common energy units using energy over the cycle, the energy index was expressed per unit of the
equivalent coefficients. The energy equivalent coefficient of time of the life cycle (h), per mass of the machinery (kg), and
an input is defined as the sum of the energy consumed during per unit of power (kW).
the production of the input (Diotto et al., 2014; Mantoam et al., Embodied energy indicators per life cycle (Eqn. 2) can be
2014, 2016; Sangaletti-Gerhard et al., 2014). determined as MJ h
1 by;
Indices of energy embodiment for each material were ob-
EF
tained from references (Appendix A, Table A.1). With the EFIL ¼ (2)
LC
technical data of each part multiplied by energy index,
resulted in the energy demand incorporated in the direct in- where EFIL is embodied energy indicator per life cycle (MJ h
1);
puts in assembly phase. With the technical data of each part LC life cycle (h).
multiplied by energy index resulted in the total energy de- Embodied energy indicators per mass (Eqn. 3), can be
mand in repair and maintenance phase. The sum of the re- determined as MJ kg1 by;
sults of direct inputs and the maintenance inputs results in
EF
the energy of the machine over its life cycle (Eq. (1)). EFIM ¼ (3)
MA
M X
X N
  where EFIM is embodied energy indicator per mass (MJ kg
1);
EF ¼ MFij * EIi (1) MA is mass (kg).
j¼1 i
1
Embodied energy indicators per engine power (Eqn. 4), can
Energy footprint (directly and indirectly) of the machine be determined as MJ kW
1 by;
over its life cycle (EF in MJ) was counted by multiplying ma-
terial flow directly and indirectly used in the assembly and EF
EFIE ¼ (4)
repair and maintenance (MF in kg; l; h), and the energy index EP
of the material used (EI in MJ kg
1; MJ l
1; MJ h
1); i ¼ ith where EFIE is embodied energy indicator per engine power (MJ
material; j ¼ jth phase (assembly and maintenance). kW
1); EP is engine power (kW).
308 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
2.3. Carbon footprint
To estimate carbon footprint, emissions factor for each input
were obtained from the literature to determine the emissions.
Similarly, after the determination of emissions in direct in-
puts and emissions in maintenance, their sum (Eqn. 5) pro-
vides the carbon footprint of the machinery life cycle by;
M X
X N
 
CF ¼ MFij *EMi
j¼1 i
1
Where CF is emissions of the machine over the life cycle (kg
[CO2e]); MFij is flow of the ith material (kg; l) in the jth phase;
EMi is emissions of the ith material (kg [CO2e] kg
1; kg [CO2e]
l
1).
In terms of emissions, for each input represented by its
unit of measurement (kg, l), its respective emission factor was
obtained and the results presented in kg [CO2e]. GHG emis-
sions indicators per life cycle (Eqn. 6) can be determined as kg
[CO2eq] h
1 by;
CF
CFIL ¼
LC
where CFIL is emissions total indicator per life cycle (kg [CO2e]
h
1; LC life cycle (h).
GHG emissions indicators per mass (Eqn. 7), can be deter-
mined kg [CO2eq] kg
1- by;
CF
CFIM ¼
MA
where CFIM is emissions total indicator per mass (kg [CO2e]
kg
1) and MA is mass (kg).
GHG emissions indicators per engine power (Eqn. 8),
determined on kg [CO2e] kW
1 by;
CF
CFIE ¼
EP
where CFIE is emissions total indicator per engine power (kg
[CO2e] kW
1) and EP is engine power (kW).
2.4. Blue water footprint
Before starting the supply chain water consumption analysis,
literature was obtained to determine water demand for each
one of the materials. Most reports were concerned with the
automotive supply chain and very few articles were con-
cerned with the water or materials consumed in the assembly
of agricultural machinery.
Thus, water use data were not available for some of the
unit inputs associated with the assembly, repair, and main-
tenance phase in this analysis, resulting in data gaps. Thus in
this study only blue the water footprint is evaluated. For
manufacturing processes, the green water footprint is usually
very small unless materials and energy derived from bio-
based materials are consumed.
The blue water footprint (BWF) of the assembly and repair
and maintenance phases (Eqn. 9) was determined by;
BWFd ¼ MF*wf d
Where BWFd is water footprint related to the direct inputs (m3)
and wfd is the water footprint in each of the direct inputs (m3
unit
1) and MF is the material flow directly and indirectly
used.
Similar to the calculations for energy and emissions, the
indicators for incorporated energy and emissions, by mass
(Eq. (10)), engine power (Eq. (11)) and life cycle (Eq. (12)) were
calculated. Each input was represented by its unit of mea-
(5) surement (kg, l) and its respective water demand was obtained
from references and the results presented in m3.
BWFd
WFIM ¼ (10)
MA
WFIE ¼
BWFd
(11)
EP
BWFd
WFIL ¼ (12)
LC
Where WFIM is water footprint indicator per mass (m3 kg);
BWFd is total is blue water footprint in the inputs on ma-
chinery cycle (m3); MA is mass (kg), WFIE is water footprint
(6)
indicator per engine power (m3 kW
1); EP is engine power
(kW); WFIL is blue water footprint indicator per life cycle (m3
h
1) and LC is life cycle (h).
3. Results and discussion
(7)
3.1. Material flow
The material flows, directly used in the assembly and repair
and maintenance phases of the machines, are shown in
Appendix B (Tables B.1 and B.2). They are divided into
metallic, non-metallic, lubricant and fluid materials and
(8) paints and solvents according to material class. Within the
category of metallic materials, ductile iron and carbon steel
were the main inputs for coffee harvester, sprayer, combine
harvester, planter and sugarcane harvester, most of which
was carbon steel. The mass of carbon steel corresponded to
3583 kg for the coffee harvester, 7777 kg for the sprayer,
3337 kg for the planter and 10,254 kg for the combine
harvester. For the sugarcane harvesters, carbon steel (69 and
65% respectively) was the main mass input with ductile iron
the second highest (1146 kg). The main use of ductile iron was
in the arms of compactor wheels and furrowed stems.
For the sprayer, ductile iron was also the second-largest
mass input (498 kg) but copper represented a high demand
(57 kg) compared to other machines, mainly applied in the
electrical circuits. Material flows were similar for the coffee
harvester, planter, self-propelled sprayer and combine, in
which carbon steel presented the main mass inputs, ranging
between 63 and 76%.
Unlike other machines, for tractors, ductile iron was the
main input in terms of masses 6280 kg and 3905 kg for the
tractors T4 and T3, respectively. The structural design of
tractors had specific characteristics in relation to other agri-
cultural machines. For example, their structural chassis was
(9)
made of ductile iron whereas the structural chassis made of
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
the other machines was made from welded steel plates. Thus
for tractors, in the assembly phase, ductile iron was the main
mass input followed by carbon steel.
For non-metallic materials, the main mass input was
rubber for the tractors, sugarcane harvester (I), planter, self-
propelled sprayer and combine harvester. In the sugarcane
harvesters, hydraulic oil represented about 4% of mass, and
rubber represented around 2%.
Rubber represented 17%, 10%, 10% and 6% for tractors T1,
T2, T3, and T4, respectively. It represented 8% for the self-
propelled sprayer and the combine harvester. For planter,
the high-density polyethylene represented 5% of the mass in
the assembly phase. For coffee harvester, nylon 6.6 was main
mass input in this class and it represented a high demand of
932 kg, mainly consumed by the stems.
In lubricants and fluids category, hydraulic oil represented
the highest mass demand for all machinery, 190 l for the self-
propelled sprayer while for combine harvester, the mass de-
mand was 66 l for hydraulic oil and 5 kg for grease. For paints
and solvents, the highest paint demand was for the combine
harvester followed by the sprayer, 17 kg, and 13 kg,
respectively.
During repair and maintenance, the main mass inputs
were rubber and hydraulic oil for all machines except the
sugarcane harvesters I and II and planter that had an
expressive carbon steel input (54%, 55% and 40%). For the
coffee harvester, hydraulic oil was the main input because it
was used in the agitation, aggression, reversion boxes and for
wheel hub traction. Rubber was the second-largest input and
was mainly used in tyres, representing a mass of 405 kg. Nylon
6.6 was mainly used by the rods and consumed 312 kg.
For the sprayer, considering the lubricants and fluids
category, hydraulic oil consumption was the largest intake,
1221 l, followed by grease 796 kg and motor oil 767 ln the in
metallic materials category, 760 kg carbon steel came from the
replacement of worn parts in addition to the outer section of
the self-propelled sprayer boom. Consumption of 414 kg of
high-density polyethylene was required by the wear and
protection plates. In planter, in terms of mass, carbon steel
had the highest mass demand of 1450 kg which was used by
straw shears, bearings and scrapers. In the non-metallic ma-
terials class, rubber had the higher demand of 660 kg and was
used by the compacting wheels, followed by the PVC that was
required by the vacuum system and required 138 kg.
For the combine harvester, hydraulic oil mass demand was
higher (1896 l) compared to the other inputs. This was fol-
lowed by rubber which was the main input considering the
non-metallic materials category (1175 kg) and this was used by
the belts and tyres. For tractors (T1, T2, T3 and T4), Mantoam
et al. (2016) observed that there was no difference between
them, in terms of their consumption of inputs such as carbon
steel, aluminium, inorganic fiberglass and polypropylene, as
these inputs are used by engine air, fuel and oil filters. Cellu-
lose film is also used by the tractor in the cabin air purifier
filter (T2, T3, and T4) in addition to the engine filters. Rubber
was the main input of mass, mainly used in tyres and this
represented the same mass for tractors (T3 and T4) because
they use the same tyres for the evaluated configuration. Hy-
draulic oil was the second-largest mass input for all tractors
evaluated.
309
Higher high-power tractors, as noted by Mantoam et al.
(2016), require more engine oil and lubricant, but the ratio is
not the same with respect to increased horsepower. Moreover,
the demand for anti-corrosion fluid used in the cooling system
to prevent corrosion of the diesel engine was the same for
tractors (T2, T3, and T4).
Among the assembly and repair and maintenance phase,
the most significant in terms of mass was the assembly phase
for the tractors (46%, 56%, 64%, 70%), coffee harvester (60%),
self-propelled sprayer (53%), planter (58%) and combine (72%).
Sugarcane harvesters were the machines that presented the
highest mass input during the repair and maintenance phase
(76 and 74%) mainly due to the use of carbon steel.
3.2. Energy footprint
Table 3 presents the main inputs embodied energy on the
assembling of coffee harvester, sprayer, planter, combine
harvester and sugarcane harvester I and II. Materials that
represented the largest energy flows in all the agricultural
machines evaluated were the metallic materials, especially
carbon steel and ductile iron.
Carbon steel was the highest input in all machines in Table
3 with the exception of the Tractors 2, 3 and 4 in Table 4. For
sugarcanes harvester and coffee harvester, Mantoam et al.
(2014; 2017) observed that carbon steel represented about
60% and 67% of all inputs in the assembly phase subtotal. In
the planter, self-propelled sprayer and combine harvester the
energy demand for carbon steel was 72, 66, 62%, respectively.
For combine harvester, the carbon steel was the input that
accounted for 528.3 GJ (62%) followed by nodular cast iron
94.3 GJ (11%). For the sprayer, coffee harvester, and sugarcane
harvesters I and II, aluminium was an important input of
incorporated energy, being more significant in sugarcane
harvester I and II 9.9 GJ (13%) and 96.5 GJ (14%). For the inputs
used in the assembly of the tractors considering the metallic
materials class, Mantoam et al. (2016) observed that the
modular cast iron had the highest incorporated energy de-
mand 40%; 40% and 42% followed by carbon steel 29%, 31%
and 35% for tractors (T2, T3 and T4), respectively. The highest
incorporated energy demand for tractor (T1) was for carbon
steel 32%, and aluminium had an incorporated energy de-
mand of 6.8 GJ (5%). The energy demand for copper, mainly
consumed by electrical circuits, resulted in between 0.4% and
0.9% of the total energy for tractors (T1, T2, T3 and T4). In
tractor (T2) the energy demand of copper (2.1 GJ) was similar to
that of high density polyethylene (2.2 GJ).
In non-metallic materials class, rubber presented the
highest energy demand for all machines during assembly and
repair and maintenance. The self-propelled sprayer had the
highest energy consumption for the rubber at 69.5 GJ (12%)
followed by high-density polyethylene 18,410 (3%). The con-
sumption of laminated glass for cabin windows resulted in
low energy demand of 253 MJ compared to the operator seat
polyurethane foam of 1.2 GJ.
For sugarcane harvesters I and II, rubber and high-density
polyethylene presented an energy demand of 26.4 GJ (3.4%),
26.8 GJ (3.9%) and 9.3 GJ (1.2%), 9.3 GJ (1.4%) respectively. The
rubber was mainly used by tyres. For tractors, Mantoam et al.
(2016) observed that the rubber represented energy demand
310 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2

Table 3 e Energy demand in assembly and repair and maintenance phase.

Input Coffee S.P. Sprayer Planter Combine Sugarcane Sugarcane
Harvester Harvester Harvester I Harvester II
MJ % MJ % MJ % MJ % MJ % MJ %
Assembly
Metallic materials
Carbon Steel 184,580.7 67.4 400,660.7 72.6 171,937.7 66.5 528,278.9 61.7 509,337.0 66.3 422,427.9 62.5
Ductile Iron 16,703.3 6.1 16,277.7 2.9 37,415.2 14.5 94,393.9 11 73,677.7 9.6 70,323.5 10.4
Aluminium 8080.4 2.9 11,947.3 2.2 11,808.7 4.6 71,882.6 8.4 99,376.2 12.9 9,6558 14.3
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 19,914.4 7.3 69,555.2 12.6 21,076 8.2 115,600 13.5 26,452.8 3.4 26,831.2 3.9
Polyethylene 2231.4 0.8 18,410.5 3.3 13,939.6 5.4 9356.5 1.1 9325.6 1.2 9325.6 1.3
Nylon 6.6 29,642.9 10.8 1740.7 0.3 191.1 0.1 7044.5 0.8 54.16 0.007 66.7 0.01
Lubricants and fluids
Hydraulic oil 5890.2 2.2 7083.2 1.3 521.9 0.2 6058 0.7 22,368 2.9 22,368 3.3
Diesel oil 668.9 0.2 1289.6 0.2 e e 1433.4 0.2 3406.7 0.4 3406.7 0.5
Lubricating oil 568.5 0.2 568.5 0.1 e e 2467.9 0.3 1707.4 0.2 1938.5 0.3
Total assembly 268,280.7 97.9 527,533.4 95.5 219,475 99.5 836,515.7 97.7 745,705.6 96.9 653,246.1 96.5
Repair and maintenance (R & M)
Metallic Materials
Carbon Steel 15,832 12.3 39,170.7 12.4 74,698.8 46.2 10,278.2 3.9 1,288,051.5 64.3 1,286,660 65.1
Aluminium 9563.4 7.4 0 0 0 0 7438.2 2.8 e e e e
Non-metallic Materials
Rubber 35,675.2 27.8 768,328 24.4 58,080 35.9 103,426.4 39.4 602,27.2 3.0 51,735.2 3.3
Nylon 6.6 11,925 9.3 152.6 0.04 0 0 0 0 e e e e
Lubricants and Fluids
Engine oil 80 388 6.5 280 586.3 9.1 0 0 70675.4 26.9 e e e e
Hydraulic oil 19,635.3 15.3 45,533.8 14.4 10,352.7 6.4 20,008.2 7.6 121,346.4 6.1 121,346.4 6.1
Lubricating oil 13,700.4 10.7 9663 3 0 0 668 0.2 95,597.1 4.8 95,597.1 4.8
Grease 1409.8 1.1 34,552.2 10.9 8897.2 5.5 20,748.7 7.9 83,055.3 4.1 4143.1 3.4
Total R & M 1,161,289.1 90.4 925,986.6 74.24 152,028.7 94 233,243.1 88.7 1,648,278 82.3 1,559,482 82.7

Table 4 e Energy demand in assembly and repair and maintenance phase for tractors.
Input Tractor (T1) Tractor (T2) Tractor (T3) Tractor (T4)
MJ % MJ % MJ % MJ %
Assembly
Metallic materials
Carbon Steel 43,477.7 32.3 94,705 29.4 101,170.9 31.7 173,843.8 35.8
Ductile Iron 39,015.6 29 69,048.4 40.3 127,535.7 40.0 205,130.3 42.3
Aluminium 6874.6 5.1 7105.6 3 12,359.4 3.9 20,354.8 4.2
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 39,306.2 24.2 44,407.1 18.9 59,395 18.6 61,339.1 12.6
Polyethylene 537.8 0.3 2200.7 0.9 242.4 0.1 5280.1 1.1
Nylon 6.6 21.8 0.1 75.6 0.0 894.2 0.3 1233.8 0.3
Lubricants and fluids
Hydraulic oil 1043.8 1.2 2982.4 1.3 3057 1.0 4175.4 0.9
Diesel oil 477.8 0.4 573.4 0.2 573.4 0.2 573.4 0.1
Engine oil 497.7 0.6 559.2 0.2 559.2 0.2 820.2 0.2
Lubricating oil 689.7 0.8 745.6 0.3 745.6 0.2 1043.8 0.2
Total assembly 131,942.7 94.0 222,403 94.5 306,532.8 96.2 473,794.7 97.7
Repair and maintenance (R & M)
Metallic materials
Carbon Steel 294.4 4.8 294.4 3.6 294.4 3.2 289.3 2.8
Aluminium 172.5 2.8 172.5 2.1 172.5 1.9 172.5 1.7
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 2816.5 46.4 3045.4 37.9 3948.6 44.1 3948.6 38.8
Lubricants and fluids
Engine oil 906 14.9 1693.4 21.1 1735.6 19.3 2370.6 23.3
Hydraulic oil 698.5 11.5 127 15.9 1270 14.2 1862.6 18.3
Lubricating oil 361.9 5.9 518.7 6.4 518.7 5.8 518.7 5.1
Anticorrossive fluid 252.4 4.1 423.7 5.3 423.7 4.8 423.7 4.1
Grease 530 8.7 543.2 6.8 543.2 6.1 543.2 5.3
Total R & M 6032.2 99.1 6818.3 99.1 8906.7 99.4 10,129.2 99.4
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
39,306.2 MJ (29.2%) and 44.4 GJ (18.9%) for tractors (T1) and (T2),
respectively.
For the coffee harvester, there was an exception because
the nylon 6.6 resulted in 11% (29.6 GJ) of the energy value
incorporate in this machine, higher than energy demand by
rubber (7%).
In lubricants and fluids category, hydraulic oil resulted in
higher built-in energy demand, in the sprayer, energy demand
was 7.1 GJ (1.3%) and grease used to lubricate solid friction
points reducing wear between surfaces resulted in 108 MJ. For
the planter, the sum of the hydraulic oil and grease repre-
sented less than 1% (522 MJ and 87 MJ) in the assembly phase.
Grease and anti-corrosive fluid had low energy demand,
approximately 0.1% each.
In paints and solvents category, paint presented higher
energy demand in relation to solvents between 8.7 MJ and
17.4 MJ but represented low demand of 0.1%. The paint and
solvent inputs resulted in low energy demand for all evaluated
machines.
Regarding the total percentage of incorporated energy,
several inputs had demand less than 0.1%, such as brass,
paper (newsprint), fire extinguisher chemical, anti-corrosive
fluid, paint, and solvent.
Considering all machines evaluated, in terms of direct in-
puts, the combine harvester presented the highest energy
demand of 8,56 GJ, whilst the planter presented the lowest
demand at 258 GJ. Because the combine harvester had both
propulsion and transmission drives, relative to the planter,
the difference in mass was approximately 209% and in terms
of embodied energy which was 231.4% greater for the combine
harvester.
It is important to highlight that recycled materials can
result in energy savings as the amount of energy incorporated
into the product is reduced due to energy savings in the
extraction and transformation phases of the raw material. An
example could be recycled ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene),
which has a much lower energy index than polyurethane.
Comparing the energy demand of 34.2 MJ (28 kg) to recycled
ABS and 11.7 GJ (11 kg) of polyurethane foam in the combine
harvester, the importance of using recycled materials to
reduce the energy consumption is evident.
However, according to Mikkola and Ahokas (2010), the use
of other materials may not be possible since production sys-
tems are becoming more efficient in terms of energy and the
new materials have a higher incorporated energy index than
steel. This aspect was evidenced in the agricultural machines
evaluated in this study. Observing the energy demand of high-
density polyethylene 5.3 GJ and 285.5% lower than the energy
demand of aluminium that was 20.4 GJ for tractor T4.
In terms of energy demand for tractors, Bowers (1992)
provided an estimate of 95.6 MJ kg
1 Hornacek (1979) of
80 MJ kg
1 for European tractors, while Nagy (2000) proposed
lower value, 61 MJ kg
1 for North America tractors. Dyer and
Desjardins (2006) suggested a 23% reduction in embodied en-
ergy from technological improvements and the use of recycled
materials in the construction of tractors.
Sorensen et al. (2014) assessed the energy inputs in
planting systems based on accurate discrimination of the
material composition of modern tractors and energy incor-
porated by mass. They considered as materials such as
311
aluminium, copper, fuel and oil, laminated glass, cast iron,
plastic, steel and rubber.
Agricultural machines do not differ much in terms of
distinct material groups. The main materials to be evaluated
are: carbon steel, nodular cast iron, aluminium, rubber, poly-
ethylene and high density polypropylene, which were identi-
fied as the largest consumers of energy incorporated in the
direct inputs used in the assembly of the machines. Therefore,
these values could be used as initial values for new studies to
evaluate embodied energy for other agricultural machines
and implements.
3.3. Carbon footprint
Table 5 presents carbon emissions for the coffee harvester,
sprayer, planter, combine harvester and sugarcane harvesters
I and II. Carbon steel was the largest the input for emissions
for the coffee harvester, sprayer, planter, combine harvester
and sugarcane harvesters I and II, 1,1429 kg [CO2e] (57%),
24,808 kg [CO2e] (79.1%), 10,646 kg [CO2e] (78%) and 32,710 kg
[CO2e] (69%), 31,537 kg [CO2e] (71%) and 26,156 kg [CO2e]
(67.6%) respectively.
For the category of metallic materials, the planter, combine
harvester and sugarcane harvesters showed significant
emissions based on ductile iron and aluminium. Ductile iron
emissions were 6%, 5%, 4% and 4%, respectively and
aluminium emissions accounted for 6%, 10%, 15% and 16%,
respectively. For the combine harvester, copper from elec-
trical cables resulted in higher emissions 297 kg [CO2e]
compared to high-density polyethylene 285 kg [CO2e].
For non-metallic material category, the nylon 6.6 present in
the coffee harvester stems represented the highest emissions
of this category (6,059 kg [CO2e], 30%) followed by rubber
(719 kg CO2e 3%). In other machines (sprayer, planter, combine
harvester and sugarcane harvester I and II), rubber was the
highest emissions. Rubber represented 2513 kg CO2e (8%) and
4177 kg CO2e (9%) for the self-propelled sprayer and combine
harvester, respectively.
Other materials represented few emissions; the laminated
glass of cabin windows resulted in fewer than 0.1%, emissions
with except for the of high density polyethylene in the self-
propelled sprayer and planter (561 and 425 kg [CO2e], 2 and
3% respectively). The consumption of ABS resulted in 85 kg
[CO2e], while the consumption of polyurethane foam resulted
in 155 kg [CO2e] for the combine harvester. The polyurethane
foam was in the manufacture the operator and passenger
seats. This input could be replaced by coconut fibre, as re-
ported by Heitzmann et al. (2001). Vegetable fibres were widely
used by car upholstery industries, but from the 1960s on they
began to be gradually replaced by polyurethane foams
(Morroquim, 1994). However, returning to former methods
may be necessary to mitigate emissions during upholstery
manufacture.
Lubricants and fluids class represented low emissions
during the assembly phase of the machines, with hydraulic oil
having the highest emission material in this class. In sugar-
cane harvesters I and II, it is material had lower mass emis-
sions, 3.4 kg [CO2e] and 3.9%.
Grease used to lubricate solid friction points and reduce
wear between surfaces, resulted in 13 kg [CO2e] and 11 kg
312 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2

Table 5 e Carbon emissions in assembly and maintenance phase for agricultural machinery.
Input Coffee S.P. Sprayer Planter Combine Sugarcane Sugarcane
Harvester Harvester Harvester I Harvester II
kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] %
Assembly
Metallic materials
Carbon Steel 11,428.8 57.1 24,808 79.1 10,646 77.6 32,709.8 69.3 31,537.0 71.4 261,55.8 67.7
Ductile Iron 383.6 1.9 373.8 1.2 859.2 6.3 2167.7 4.6 1691.9 3.8 1614.9 4.1
Aluminium 524.7 2.6 775.8 2.5 766.8 5.6 4667.7 9.9 6453 14.6 6270 16.2
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 719.6 3.6 2513.5 8 761.6 5.6 4177.4 8.9 955.9 2.1 969.6 2.5
Polyethylene 68.1 0.3 561.6 1.8 425.2 3.1 285.4 0.6 284.5 0.6 284.4 0.7
Nylon 6.6 6059.1 30.3 355.8 1.1 39.1 0.3 1439.9 3.1 11.05 0.02 13.6 0.04
Lubricants and fluids
Hydraulic oil 401.3 2 482.6 1.5 35.6 0.3 412.8 0.9 1524 3.4 1524 3.9
Diesel oil 36.4 0.2 70.2 0.2 e e 78 0.2 185.3 0.4 185.3 0.5
Lubricating oil 38.7 0.2 38.7 0.1 e e 168.1 0.4 116.3 0.2 132.1 0.3
Paint and solvent
Paint 28.5 0.1 48.1 0.2 24.9 0.2 60.5 0.1 71.2 0.2 74.7 0.2
Total Assembly 19,688.8 98.3 30,028.1 95.7 13,558.4 99 46,167.3 98 42,830.1 96.7 37,224.4 96.1
Repair and maintenance (R & M)
Metallic Materials
Carbon Steel 980.2 11.5 2425.3 14.7 4625.1 51 636.4 4.04 79,753.2 64.2 79,667.1 65.4
Non-metallic Materials
Rubber 1289.1 15.2 2776.4 16.8 2098.8 23.1 3737 23.7 2176.4 1.8 1869.5 1.5
Nylon 6.6 2437.5 28.7 e e e e e e e e e e
Lubricants and Fluids
Engine oil 571.5 6.7 1947.6 11.8 0 0 1422.4 9 5888.7 4.7 5888.7 4.8
Hydraulic oil 1337.8 15.7 3102.3 18.8 0 0 4815.3 30.6 8267.7 6.7 8267.7 6.8
Lubricating oil 933.4 11.1 658.3 4 705.3 12 2535 16.1 6513.3 5.3 6513.3 5.3
Grease 172.2 2 4221.4 25.6 1087 12 2534.9 16.1 101,47.4 8.2 8239.9 6.7
Total R & M 7721.1 90.9 15,131.3 91.7 8516.2 98.1 15,681 99.54 112,746.7 90.9 110,446.2 90.5

[CO2e] or <1% of emissions, for the self-propelled sprayer and
planter, respectively.
In the repair and maintenance phase, carbon steel had the
highest emissions for metallic materials in sugarcane har-
vesters I and II (64 and 65%). For the non-metallic materials
category, rubber had significant emissions for coffee
harvester, sprayer, planter and combine harvester (15, 17, 23
and 24%). For lubricants and fluids, emissions for hydraulic
oil were: 16%, 19% for the coffee harvester and sprayer. En-
gine oil had significant emissions for combine harvester
(27%).
Considering the two phases, the emissions from the coffee
harvester observed by Mantoam et al. (2017) were 40% lower
compared to the self-propelled sprayer and the difference in
mass between machines was 55% higher for the self-propelled
sprayer (5600 kg and 10,100 kg respectively).
Emissions in the assembly and repair and maintenance
phase for tractors are shown in Table 6. In metallic materials
class, as in the other machines, carbon steel represented the
input with the highest emissions among tractors: 2692 kg
[CO2e] (46%) tractor (T1) and 10,764 kg [CO2e] (52%) tractor (T4),
respectively. Ductile iron represented lower emissions
compared to carbon steel, ranging from 896 kg [CO2e] (15%) to
4711 kg [CO2e] (23%) for tractors (T1, T2, T3 and T4).
In non-metallic materials category, rubber represented
emissions of 1420 kg CO2e (24%); 1605 kg [CO2e] (17%), 2146 kg
[CO2e] (16%) and 2,216 kg [CO2e] (11%) for tractors (T1, T2, T3
and T4), respectively.
Table 6 shows also the emissions in the inputs used for
maintenance, during the life cycle of tractors (T1, T2, T3 and
T4). The largest emissions among tractors were: rubber (46%
and 44%) for tractors (T1 and T3) and hydraulic oil (23% and
22%) for tractors (T4 and T2), respectively.
Comparing embodied energy demand with emissions re-
sults in quite different proportions. For the tractor (T2) the
consumption of 15 kg of copper resulted in a lower energy
demand of 2157 MJ, compared to the consumption of 42 kg of
high-density polyethylene 2201 MJ, while emissions were
higher for copper, 92 kg [CO2e] versus 67 kg [CO2e] for high-
density polyethylene.
Comparing the emissions for hydraulic oil among the four
tractors they were in the order of 71 kg [CO2e], 203 kg [CO2e],
208 kg [CO2e] and 284 kg [CO2e] which was much lower than
emissions for aluminium 446 kg [CO2e], 461 kg [CO2e], 803 kg
[CO2e] and 1321.7 kg [CO2e] for tractors (T1, T2, T3 and T4),
respectively.
Most of the emissions for the coffee harvester, sprayer,
planter and combine harvester were from direct inputs 20,026;
31,343; 13,715 and 47,200 kg [CO2e], respectively. For tractors
(T1, T2 and T3), most emissions were from maintenance in-
puts, 9,134 kg [CO2e] (60.8%), 11,738 kg [CO2e] (55.4%) and
13,496.0 kg [CO2e] (50.4%), respectively. In direct inputs,
emissions were 5,880, 9437 and 1,3251 kg [CO2e], respectively.
Encouraging the manufacture of parts to use ductile iron
instead of carbon steel can increase sustainability of the
production of agricultural machinery, as well as reduce
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2 313

Table 6 e Carbon emissions in assembly and repair and maintenance phase for tractors.
Input Tractor (T1) Tractor (T2) Tractor (T3) Tractor (T4)
kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] % kg [CO2e] %
Assembly
Metallic materials
Carbon Steel 2692 45.8 4275.3 45.3 6264.3 47.3 10,764 52.5
Ductile Iron 895.9 15.2 2174.8 23 2928.7 22.1 4710.6 23
Aluminium 446.4 7.6 461.4 4.9 802.6 6.1 1321.7 6.4
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 1420.4 24.2 1604.7 17 2146.3 16.2 2216.6 10.8
Polyethylene high density 16.4 0.3 64.1 0.7 7.4 0.1 161.1 0.8
Nylon 6.6 4.5 0.1 15.4 0.2 182.8 1.4 252.2 1.2
Lubricants and fluids
Hydraulic oil 71.1 1.2 203.2 2.2 208.3 1.6 284.5 1.4
Diesel oil 26 0.4 31.2 0.3 31.2 0.2 31.2 0.2
Engine oil 33.9 0.6 38.1 0.4 38.1 0.3 55.9 0.3
Lubricating oil 47.0 0.8 50.8 0.5 50.8 0.4 71.1 0.3
Paint and solvent
Paint 12.5 0.2 24.9 0.3 24.9 0.2 24.9 0.1
Total Assembly 5666.1 96.4 8943.3 94.8 12,685.4 95.9 19,893.8 97.0
Repair and maintenance (R & M)
Metallic materials
Carbon Steel 294.4 4.8 294.4 3.6 294.4 3.3 289.3 2.8
Aluminium 172.5 2.8 172.5 2.1 172.5 1.9 172.5 1.7
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 2816.5 46.3 3045.4 38 3948.6 44 3948.6 38.7
Lubricants and fluids
Engine oil 906 15 1693.4 21.1 1735.5 19.3 2370.6 23.2
Hydraulic oil 698.5 11.5 1270 15.8 1270 14.1 1862.6 18.3
Lubricating oil 361.9 5.9 518.6 6.4 518.6 5.8 518.6 5.1
Anticorrossive fluid 252.4 4.1 423.7 5.3 423.7 4.7 423.7 4.1
Grease 530 8.7 543.2 6.8 543.2 6 543.2 5.3
Total R & M 6032.2 99.1 7961.2 99.1 8906.5 99.1 10,129.1 99.2

emissions. In this sense, the importance and necessity of the
use of recyclable materials for the production of agricultural
machinery is clear. Aluminium recycling requires only 5%
energy (International Aluminum Institute IAI, 2005;
Martcheck, 2006) and it is an important energy and emissions
saving factor (IPCC, 2007). In addition, scrap steel production
uses only 30%e40% of energy and reduces CO2 emissions (De
Beer et al., 1998). For Doering et al. (1980) the largest savings
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the manufacture of
agricultural tractors were found to be due to the increased use
of recycled steel.
The design of lightweight efficient structures to minimise
material consumption using recycled/reusable materials or
components should be an alternative for reducing environ-
mental impacts (Morini et al., 2019). Another objective, out-
lined by Van der Velden et al. (2015), is to design long-term
products using durable and low maintenance materials.
Considering all machines, carbon steel was the most
representative input because of its large demand volume. Tyre
rubber and oils (hydraulic, engine and lubricants) also pro-
duced large emissions. Recycling tyres and using oil recovery
to produce new lubricating products, can contribute to the
reducing energy consumption and emissions. Recycling is an
important factor for the economy and energy, not only for the
steel and aluminium industries, but also for lubricating oils
(IPCC, 2007; Ali et al., 1995; Martins, 1997). However, as re-
ported by the IPCC (2014), GHG mitigation measures in the
industry are linked to management decisions and strategies.
These decisions should take into account not only (competi-
tiveness, cost savings, business opportunities, compliance
with environmental laws, waste reduction), but above all, due
respect and protection of the environment. As far as carbon
steel is concerned, this metal alloy will be hard to replace in
the manufacture of agricultural machinery. However, with
high-technology steel production, many products such as
automobiles could be one-third lighter without any loss of
performance during use (Carruth, Allwood, & Moynuhan,
2011).
3.4. Blue water footprint
Table 7 presents the WF and the contribution of each item in
the assembly phase and repair and maintenance phase of the
agricultural machinery evaluated.
Among the metals used, carbon steel was the main mate-
rial with a larger WF. Together with ductile iron, these two
metals accounted for the largest proportion of the WF of the
materials incorporated in the sprayer, planter and sugarcane
harvesters. Carbon steel accounted for most of this fraction,
from 43 to 59%, while the combine harvester accounted for
less than 32%. Ductile iron was responsible for between 623
and 3600 L of water, corresponding to 1e8%.
The non-metallic materials, rubber and paper, accounted
for about 20% of the WF during the assembly phase. The
314 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2

Table 7 e Water footprint in assembly and repair and maintenance phase in agricultural machinery.
Input Coffee S.P. Sprayer Planter Combine Sugarcane Sugarcane
Harvester Harvester Harvester I Harvester II
m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] %
Assembly
Metallic materials
Ductile iron 0.64 0.4 0.62 1.1 1.43 8.5 3.62 3.7 2.8 5.2 2.7 5.5
Carbon steel 10.64 6.3 2.31 43.2 9.91 59.1 3.05 31.6 29.3 54.2 24.3 49.5
Aluminium 0.45 0.2 0.67 1.2 0.66 3.9 4.05 4.2 5.6 10.3 5.4 11.0
Copper 1.64 0.9 0.54 10.0 0.05 0.0 4.62 4.8 5.1 9.4 5.1 10.4
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 1.43 0.8 4.99 9.3 1.51 9.0 8.30 8.6 1.9 3.5 1.9 3.9
Paper 1.88 1.1 4.64 8.7 1.74 10.3 4.06 4.2 5.2 9.6 5.2 10.6
Nylon 6.6 15.10 89.6 8.86 16.6 0.97 5.8 3.59 37.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7
Lubricants and fluids
Lubricating oil 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.56 0.6 0.4 0.72 0.4 0.9
Total Assembly 16.78 99.3 4.84 90.3 1.63 96.6 9.15 95.0 50.6 93.42 45.3 92.5
Repair and Maintenance (R & M)
Metallic Materials
Carbon steel 0.91 1.3 2.26 5.6 4.30 23.4 592.5 1.9 74.2 41.5 74.1 44.9
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 2.56 3.7 5.52 13.8 4.17 22.7 7.43 24.7 4.3 2.4 3.7 2.2
Nylon 6.6 6.07 87.7 0.78 1.9 e e e e e e e e
Lubricants and fluids
Lubricating oil 3.12 4.5 2.20 5.5 2.36 12.8 4.56 15.2 21.7 12.2 21.8 13.2
Grease 1.15 1.6 2.82 70.5 7.26 39.5 1.69 56.4 67.7 37.9 55.0 33.3
Total R & M 6.85 98.8 3.89 97.3 18.10 98.4 2.95 98.25 167.9 94 154.6 93.6

machine with the largest WF was the coffee harvester with
about 237 m3, followed by sprayer with 93 m3. The materials
with the largest WF for the coffee harvester were nylon and
rubber, which accounted for 90% and <1% of the WF. Steel
accounted for 6% of the WF. In the assembly phase, the WF of
the lubricant and fluid class was less than 1%. The main in-
puts in the repair and maintenance phase were rubber and
grease for the combiner and sprayer, nylon 6.6 for the coffee
harvester and carbon steel for the sugarcane harvester.
For tractors (Table 8), carbon steel and ductile iron
accounted for between 35 and 42% of WF of tractors in the
assembly phase. For T1, T2, T3, and T4, carbon steel and
ductile iron accounted for 38%, 38, 36 and 43% of the blue WF,
respectively.
For the T1 and T2 tractors, rubber and paper accounted for
41 and 25% of the WF, while for T3 and T4 tractors, Nylon 6.6
and Cotton synthetic fibre accounted for 30 and 29%. Carbon
steel and ductile iron and the main materials of the non-
metallic class described above represented about 70% of the
WF in the assembly phase of all tractors studied. Rubber
accounted for 50% of the WF during repair and maintenance.
In this phase, three inputs accounted for more than 90% of the
WF, i.e. rubber, lubricating oil, and grease.
For tractors, the demand for water was higher depending
on the power and mass of the tractors. The blue WF of T2 is
about half (57%) of the water demand of tractor T4. The as-
sembly phase was the one with the highest WF. Table 7 shows
that there is a difference between the coffee harvester and
other agricultural machines evaluated in this work. While the
WF of sugarcane harvesters I and II and coffee harvester were
similar with 232, 214 and 238 m3, the WF of the other ma-
chines varied between 21 and 93 m3. On average, the WF for
tractors was about two to three times smaller than the coffee
harvester.
For all the machines evaluated, the assembly phase was
the one with a larger WF, with the exception of the sugarcane
harvester. The analysis shows a clear difference between the
WF of coffee harvester and sugarcane harvester and the
others machines.
Saari et al. (2007) studied the effect of material consump-
tion on vehicle life cycle, and they determined that the total
water consumption per vehicle was 90 m3. However, no in-
formation was provided to indicate where and how this water
was used or even if it took into account recycling rates of
water to determine the real consumption rate. In this context,
the quantification of the water use must be key first step to-
wards reducing water consumption during the production
phase (Zhao et al., 2012).
3.5. Indicators
Indices of energy, emissions and water embodiment are pre-
sented per lifetime (EEIL), mass (EEIM) and engine power (EEIE)
in Table 9. The highest energy indices due to the engine power
of the agricultural machine were observed in the sugarcane
harvesters, coffee harvester and sprayer.
The energy indexes incorporated considering the life cycle
of the agricultural machinery was higher for the combine
harvester followed by the sugarcane harvester and T4 tractor,
this result can be explained by life cycle of the combine
harvester, this machine was that presented smaller life cycle.
For tractors, the useful life is the same for all models evalu-
ated. Although the coffee harvester has a longer than the life
of the sprayer, the built-in energy indexes (EEIL) are very close.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2 315

Table 8 e Water footprint in assembly and repair and maintenance for tractors.
Input Tractor (T1) Tractor (T2) Tractor (T3) Tractor (T4)
m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] % m3 [H20] %
Assembly
Metallic materials
Ductile iron 1.49 14.1 3.63 18.3 4.89 16.3 7.86 18.9
Carbon steel 2.51 23.6 3.98 20.1 5.83 19.4 10.02 24.1
Aluminium 0.39 3.6 0.40 2.0 0.69 2.3 1.14 2.7
Copper 0.40 3.8 1.43 7.2 1.34 4.5 1.32 3.2
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 2.82 26.6 3.19 16.1 4.26 14.2 4.40 10.6
Paper 1.74 16.4 1.74 8.8 1.74 5.8 1.74 4.2
Fiberglass & polyester 0.33 3.1 0.33 1.6 0.61 2.0 0.60 1.4
Nylon 6.6 0.11 1.1 0.39 1.9 4.55 15.2 6.28 15.1
Cotton synthetic fibre 0.11 1.0 3.54 17.8 4.57 15.2 5.93 14.2
Lubricants and fluids
Lubricating oil 0.16 1.5 0.17 0.8 0.17 0.5 0.24 0.6
Total Assembly 10.06 94.8 18.80 94.6 28.67 95.4 39.56 95
Repair and maintenance (R & M)
Metallic materials
Carbon steel 0.27 2.5 0.27 2.3 0.27 1.9 0.27 1.9
Aluminium 0.15 1.3 0.15 1.2 0.15 1.1 0.15 1.1
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 5.60 51.5 6.05 50.7 7.85 57.2 7.85 57.2
Lubricants and fluids
Lubricating oil 1.21 11.1 1.74 14.5 1.74 12.7 1.74 12.6
Grease 3.54 32.6 3.63 30.4 3.63 26.6 3.63 26.4
Total R & M 10.77 99.0 11.84 99.1 13.63 99.5 13.63 99.2

Considering the mass of agricultural machines and the energy
incorporated in each of them, the coffee harvester, combine
harvester, sprayer, and planter have similar values ranging
from 70 to 82 MJ kg
1.
Concerning the energy indicator by engine power, sugar-
cane harvesters (I and II) presented high engine power
(260 kW) and the higher energy indicator by engine power
(10.6 and 10.2 GJ kW
1) due the energy embodied by machine
(Mantoam et al., 2014). Differently from what was observed on
sugarcane harvesters, the coffee harvester presented the
second largest energy indicator by engine power (10 GJ kW
1),
and however, this machine has the lowest engine power
(40 kW).
The energy required for assembly accounts for the largest
share of energy embodied to agricultural machinery. Howev-
er, the sugarcane harvesters I and II were an exception, and
were the machines that presented the highest energy foot-
print in repair and maintenance about 70% of total energy
footprint.
The energy embodied in the sprayer, planter and combine
harvester was 867, 420 and 1118 GJ per machine respectively.
The energy embodied by assembly phase represented 64% of
the all energy embodied for sprayer, 61% for the planter and
77% for the combine. In relation to the other machines, trac-
tors and the coffee harvester, most of the energy incorporated
occurred during the assembly phase (70.2%) and the total
energy required for coffee harvester was 402 GJ.
Combine harvester was the machine with the highest
power (325 kW). However, this machine obtained a smaller
energy demand compared to the sugarcane harvester for total
direct demanded energy. That is, the energy required by repair
and maintenance phase by the sugarcane harvester was much

Table 9 e Energy, emissions and water footprints by machinery life cycle, mass and engine power of the agricultural
machinery.
Machinery EEILa EEIMb EEIEc
MJ h
1 kg [CO2e] h
1 l h
1 MJ kg
1 kg [CO2e] kg
1 l kg
1 MJ kW
1 kg [CO2e] kW
1 l kW
1
Tractor T1 25.9 1.2 2.1 97.9 4.5 8.1 4717.9 216.9 390.0
Tractor T2 39.1 1.7 3.2 76.6 3.4 6.2 4344.2 193.6 352.8
Tractor T3 49.9 2.2 4.4 71.9 3.2 6.3 2905.0 128.9 254.1
Tractor T4 68.5 3.0 5.5 62.5 2.8 5.1 2784.4 124.7 224.9
Coffee harvester 67.0 4.7 39.6 71.8 5.1 42.5 10,058.7 712.5 5943.2
Self-propelled sprayer 64.2 4.5 6.9 81.0 5.7 8.7 5897.1 417.0 635.3
Planter e e e 82.3 5.3 6.9 e e e
Combine 238.8 20.0 27.1 70.7 5.9 7.9 3439.7 288.5 388.4
Sugarcane harvester I 126.0 7.6 10.5 186.5 11.3 15.6 10,664 647.1 893.1
Sugarcane harvester II 120.5 7.3 9.7 156.2 9.4 12.5 10,200 617.0 821.5
316 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
Fig. 2 e Tendencies of energy, carbon and water footprints due to tractor mass and power.
higher than that observed for the combines. As observed in all
agricultural machines, in the repair and maintenance phase
the main materials responsible for the incorporation of energy
were carbon steel and rubber used in the cabin and tires of the
machines.
The water indicators by life cycle for the tractors were
smaller (2e5 l h
1) than other machines (Table 9). Coffee and
combine harvester presented water demand of 40 l h
1,
21 l h
1, respectively. Self-propelled sprayer was the smaller
water demand by life cycle, 7 l h
1. Water demand by mass
was also smaller for the planter. Coffee harvester presented
higher water demand by engine power than that observed by
life cycle. Water demand of agricultural machinery by engine
power were between 267 l kW
1 and 5943 l kW
1.
Life cycle emissions indicator for the coffee harvester and
self-propelled sprayer was 5 kg [CO2e] h
1 and 4 kg [CO2e] h
1,
respectively (Table 9). For tractors (T1, T2, T3, and T4), the life
cycle emissions indicator observed by Mantoam et al. (2016)
was between 1 kg [CO2e] h
1 to 3 kg [CO2e] h
1. These values
were lower than those observed for the sugarcane harvester
and the combine, 8 and 20 kg [CO2e] h
1. Emission indicator by
mass, for the planter and combine harvester was 3 kg [CO2e]
kg
1. In the life cycle indicated by the manufacturer, the mass
indicator for the tractor (T2) was 3 kg [CO2e] and kg
1.
Emission by power for the coffee harvester, self-propelled
sprayer and combine harvester were 677 kg [CO2e] kW
1,
296 kg [CO2e] kW
1 and 287 kg [CO2e] kW
1. Mantoam et al.
(2016) obtained 125 kg [CO2e] kW
1 for the tractor T4.
Although just four levels of tractor power were evaluated,
trends were noticed for all footprints determined either
considering EEIM (Fig. 2 a, b, c) or EEIE (Fig. 2 d, e, f). They
corroborate those of Lee et al. (2000), being the amount of
energy and GHG emissions to make a tractor directly propor-
tional to the mass of materials. As engine power increases,
less embodied energy per mass or power is demanded. This
may be due to the non-proportional requirement of tractor
infrastructure to hold a more powerful engine.
Other authors evaluating the energy demand and carbon
emission of agricultural tractors (Lee et al., 2000), observed
correlation between energy demand, carbon emissions and
mass. Mantoam et al. (2018) evaluated the energy and water
footprints during the assembly of some agricultural machines,
just considering the energy, materials and asset depreciation
of machinery assembling lines. A significant correlation has
been observed for energy demand, however, the correlation
with water demand was low, particularly for the data showing
for the water footprint of tractor parts assembled and their
maintenance (Fig. 2 c, f).
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2 317

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as the amount of energy and

4. Conclusions emissions incorporated into the product is reduced due to
energy savings in the extraction and transformation phases of
The energy and carbon footprint of agricultural machinery the raw material. In order to optimise the WF, manufacturers
was larger during the assembly stage for most of the machines could implement water recycling in some processes or replace
evaluated in this study. Exceptions were the sugarcane har- materials that have a large WF. In addition, it is important to
vesters which had a greater impact during its maintenance note when calculating WF in this study water pollution was
phase, mainly due to the larger quantity of carbon steel used not included (grey WF). This could involve the spillage of lu-
in these machines during maintenance compared to their bricants and oil spills leading to water pollution.
assembly phase. The WF was larger in the maintenance phase The indices presented here may feed life cycle database
of all machines evaluated due to the use of rubber tyres. and be used to assess the production of biomass more prop-
Carbon steel was the most important material in the car- erly. It may also affect the design of machinery in the search
bon and energy footprint. Due to its strength, this material is for lower environmental impacts. The methodology may also
widely used in the structure of agricultural machines and may be applied to other categories of assets beyond the agricultural
be difficult to substitute. boundaries examined here.
For the water footprint, an exception was observed for the
coffee harvester and combine harvester due to the amount of
nylon 6.6 used in these machines. This material has good
physical, chemical, mechanical and electrical properties that
Declaration of competing interest
enables it to be used as a substitute for bronze, brass,
The authors declare that they have no known competing
aluminium, cast iron and steel.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
Approximately 80e90% of the energy, carbon and water
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
footprints of most of the machines assessed can be attributed
to carbon steel, ductile iron, aluminium, rubber and lubricants
inputs. This study provides valuable information on the en-
ergy, carbon and water footprints of agricultural machineries
Acknowledgements
for future studies.
Among non-metallic materials, rubber has played a sig-
Corresponding author acknowledge FAPESP e Sao Paulo
nificant role in the water footprint, carbon emissions and
Research Foundation (Projects 2010/11723-5 and 2015/1613-1);
energy. The reuse of tyres through re-treading can be an
and CNPq e National Council for Scientific and Technological
alternative for reducing the impact of the maintenance phase
Development (301532/2015-0) for the grants provided.
on agricultural machinery.
Technological improvements and recycled/reusable ma-
Appendix A
terials or components can reduce energy demand and

Table A.1 e References and indices used.

Materials Water Energy Emissions CO2 eq
l kg
1 Reference MJ kg
1 Reference kg [CO2e] kg Reference
Aluminium 13 Margolis and Sousa 231.0 Stodolsky et al. 15.0 Berge (2009)
(1997) (1995)
Anticorrosive fluid e e 2.3 Leach and Slesser 2.3 Hammond and Jones
(1973)a (2008)
Brass 2 Nakano et al. (2005) 140.0 Stodolsky et al. 2.8 Hammond and Jones
(1995) (2008)
Carbon steel 2.9 Margolis and Brindle 51.5 Berry and Fels (1972) 3.2 Hammond and Jones
(2000) (2008)
Cellulose film e e 192.5 Imperial Chemical 1.6 Berge (2009)
Industries (1974)a
Chemical powder ABC e e 2.5 Bravard et al. (1972)a 0.1 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Copper 93.2 Tikana et al. (2005) 140.0 Stodolsky et al. 6.0 Berge (2009)
(1995)
Cotton synthetic fibre 657 Mekonnen and 45.3 Boustead and 1.3 Hammond and Jones
Hoekstra (2011) Hancock (1979) (2008)
Diesel oil 2.2 Jefferies et al. (2012) 47.8 Cervinka (1980). 2.6 DECC (2014)
Ductile iron 1.2 Margolis and Brindle 32.7 Samples (1974)a 0.8 Berge (2009)
(2000)
Engine oil e e 37.3 EPE (2009)a 2.5 DECC (2014)
(continued on next page)
318 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2

Table A.1 e (continued )

Materials Water Energy Emissions CO2 eq
l kg
1 Reference MJ kg
1 Reference kg [CO2e] kg Reference
Fiberglass & polyester 94.5 Leterrier (1998) 0.8 Bravard et al. (1972) 1.5 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Fibreglass & aluminium e e 0.8 Bravard et al. (1972) 8.1 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Forged iron 1.2 Margolis and Brindle 78.9 Berry and Fels (1972) 0.8 Berge (2009)
(2000)
Grease 35.4 Deorsola et al. (2012) 43.4 EPE (2009) 5.3 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Hydraulic oil e e 37.3 EPE (2009) 2.5 DECC (2014)
Inorganic fibreglass 12 Scalet et al. (2013) 0.8 Berry and Fels (1972) 1.5 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Lead e e 17.3 Porameswaren and 1.1 Berge (2009)
Nadkarni (1975)
LPG 2.5 Francke and Castro 58.9 Boustead and 1.3 EPA (2014)
(2013) Hancock (1979, 422
p.)
Lubricating oil 8.5 Girotti et al. (2011) 37.3 EPE (2009) 2.5 DECC (2014)
Nitrogen (N2) 0.45 Sheehan et al. (1998) 1.7 U.S. Dept. of 2.3 Hammond and Jones
Commerce (1975)a (2008)
Nylon 6.6 162 Boustead (2005) 31.8 Boustead and 6.5 Hammond and Jones
Hancock (1979) (2008)
Paint e e 2.5 Bravard et al. (1972) 3.6 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Paper (printed news) 1450 Van Oel and 34.4 Newton (1963)a 1.5 Hammond and Jones
Hoekstra (2012) (2008)
Plate glass 12.9 Pulselli et al. (2007) 30.2 Samples (1974) 0.9 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Polyethylene high density 1.5 Franklin Associates 52.5 Ayres et al. (1974)a 1.6 Berge (2009)
(2011)
Polypropylene 1.2 Franklin Associates 110.2 Boustead and 1.7 Berge (2009)
(2011) Hancock (1979)
Polyurethane 0.45 Franklin Associates 110.2 Boustead and 3.0 Hammond and Jones
(2011) Hancock (1979) (2008)
Polyurethane foam 0.004 Franklin Associates 110.2 Boustead and 14.5 Berge (2009)
(2011) Hancock (1979)
PVC 1 Franklin Associates 10.6 Ayres et al. (1974 3.0 Berge (2009)
(2011)
PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) 1 Franklin Associates 10.6 Ayres et al. (1974 3.0 Berge (2009)
(2011)
Recycled ABS 2.6 Franklin Associates 1.2 USEPA (1974) 3.1 Hammond and Jones
(2011) (2008)
Rubber 6.32 Bridgestone EU 88.0 Stodolsky et al. 3.2 Hammond and Jones
(2012) (1995) (2008)
Solvent e e 2.5 Bravard et al. (1972) 3.6 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
Stainless steel 2.965 Margolis and Brindle 81.8 Berry and Fels (1972) 2.2 Berge (2009)
(2000)
Steel wire 2.97 Margolis and Brindle 19.1 Decker (1976)a 2.8 Hammond and Jones
(2000) (2008)
Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) e e 2.5 Bravard et al. (1972) 2.3 Hammond and Jones
(2008)
a
These suppliers were referenced in data cited by Boustead and Hancock (1979).
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2 319

Appendix B

Table B.1 e Direct use inputs in assembly phase

Materials Tractors Sugarcane Harvester Coffee Harvester S.P. Sprayer Planter Combine
T1 T2 T3 T4
Directly used inputs (kg)
Metallic materials
Ductile iron 1194.6 2899.7 3905 6280.8 3843.1 511.4 498.4 1145.6 2890.2
Carbon steel 843.9 1340.2 1963.7 3374.3 9558 3582.7 7776.8 3337.3 10,253.9
Steel wire 0.1 2.1 4.4 5.2 170.6 12.5 40.5 7.4 41
Forged iron e e e e 1562.9 e e e e
Stainless steel e e e 2 26.5 0.3 e
Aluminium 29.8 30.8 53.5 88.1 418 35 51.7 51.1 311.2
Copper 4.3 15.4 14.4 14.2 54.8 17.6 57.4 0.5 49.6
Lead 10.1 10.1 16.9 16.9 e 10.1 21.5 e 33.7
Non-Metallic materials
Rubber 446.7 504.6 674.9 697 304.9 226.3 790.4 239.5 1313.6
Polyethylene high density 10.3 42 4.6 100.7 177.8 42.5 351 265.8 178.4
Polypropylene 8.5 37.2 61.4 27.8 61.9 9.1 83.5 7.3 51.2
Fibreglass & aluminium 0 0 0 6.1 e e e e e
Recycled ABS 13.5 0 18 25.2 e 1 14.8 e 27.6
Plate glass 0 24.6 26.2 27.8 e 6.8 8.4 e 12.3
Polyurethane foam 4 7 7 7 e 4.5 11 e 10.7
PVC (Poly vinyl chloride) 2.4 6.4 15.7 15.2 e 11.9 e e e
Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) 1.7 1.7 2.8 2.8 e 1.7 3.6 e 5.6
Polyurethane 0.7 31.2 2.9 25.3 e 1 11 e 17.4
Chemical powder ABC 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 e 3.2 4 e 4
Paper (printed news) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 e 1.3 3.2 1.2 2.8
Cellulose film 1.3 1.6 1.3 2.2 e 1.6 0.6 e 1.4
Fiberglass & polyester 3.5 3.5 6.5 6.4 e e 30.8 e e
Nylon 6.6 0.7 2.4 28.1 38.8 e 932.2 54.7 6 221.5
Cotton synthetic fibre 0.2 6.5 8.4 10.9 e e 0.4 e 4.6
Inorganic fiberglass 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 e e e e e
Lubricants and fluids
Hydraulic oil 28 80 82 112 600 158 190 14 162.5
Diesel oil 10 12 12 12 71.3 14 27 e 30
Engine oil 13.4 15 15 22 e 15.3 14.2 e 24
Lubricating oil 18.5 20 20 28 0.6 7.5 15.3 e 66.2
Grease 2 5 5 5 e 3.7 2.5 2 5
Anticorrosive fluid 1 1 1 1 e 1 1 e 1
Paint and solvent
Paint 3.5 7 7 7 e 8 13.5 7 17
Solvent 1 2 2 2 e 2 3.5 2 4

Table B.2 e Direct use inputs in Repair and maintenance phase

Materials Tractors Sugarcane Harvester Coffee Harvester S.P. Sprayer Planter Combine
T1 T2 T3 T4
Labour 1133.8 1213.8 846.3 1227.8 5006.2 1393.8 3582.2 798.7 1010.6
Metallic materials
Carbon steel 92.3 92.3 92.3 90.7 25,515.5 307.3 760.3 1449.9 199.5
Ductile iron e e e e 7257.1 102 e e e
Forged iron e e e e 3959.1 e e e e
Aluminium 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 e 41.4 e e 32.2
Non-metallic materials
Rubber 885.7 957.7 1241.7 1241.7 587.9 405.4 873.1 660 1175.3
(continued on next page)
320 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2

Table B.2 e (continued )

Materials Tractors Sugarcane Harvester Coffee Harvester S.P. Sprayer Planter Combine
T1 T2 T3 T4
Cellulose film 18.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 73.2 30.2 64.2 e 20.5
Inorganic fibreglass 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 e 3.6 e e 1.4
Polypropylene 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 11.6 0.6 351 28.6 0.5
Polyethylene high density e e e e 789 e 414.5 60.8 35
Nylon 6.6 e e e e e 375 4.8 e e
PVC e e e e e e e 138.8 e
Lubricants and fluids
Engine oil 356.7 666.7 683.3 933.3 e 225 766.8 e 560
Hydraulic oil 275 500 500 733.3 3255 526.7 1221.4 e 1895.8
Diesel oil e e e e 3536.3 e e e e
Lubricating oil 142.5 204.2 204.2 204.2 4882.7 367.5 259.2 277.7 536.7
Anticorrosive fluid 111.7 187.5 187.5 187.5 e e e e 291.7
Grease 100 102.5 102.5 102.5 1554.7 32.5 796.5 205.1 478.3

references Recycling, 57, 48e60. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/

j.resconrec.2011.09.018.
Cervinka, V. (1980). Fuel and energy efficiency. In D. PIMENTEL
(Ed.), Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture (pp. 15e21).
Ali, M. F., Hamdan, A. J., & Rahman, F. (1995). Techno-economic
Boca Raton: CRC.
evaluation of waste lube oil re-refining in Saudi Arabia.
De Beer, J. G., Worrell, E., & Blok, K. (1998). Future technologies for
American Chemical Society, 40(4), 901e907.
energy efficient iron and steelmaking. Annual Review of Energy
Andrea, M. C. S., Romanelli, T. L., & Molin, J. P. (2016). Energy flows
and the Environment, 23, 123e205. https://doi.org/10.1146/
in lowland soybean production system in Brazil. Ci^encia Rural,
annurev.energy.23.1.123
46(8), 1395e1400. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20151298
Decker, A. (1976). Proceedings of the 9th international TNO conference.
ANFAVEA. (2019). Brazilian automotive industry yearbook 2019 (p.
Rotterdam.
152p). Sa~ o Paulo: Associaça ~ o Nacional dos Fabricantes de
Deleage, J. P., Julien, J. M., Sauget-Naudin, N., & Souchon, C.
Veı́culos Automotores.
(1979). Eco-energetics analysis of an agricultural system: The
Ayres, R., Saxon, J., & Stern, M. (1974). Materials-process-product
French case in 1970. Agro-Ecosystems, 5, 345e365. https://
model. Arlington, VA: International Research and Technology
doi.org/10.1016/0304-3746(79)90036-2
Corp.
Deorsola, F. A., Russo, N., Blengini, G. A., & Fino, D. (2012).
Bakhshi, A., & Monsabert, S. (2012). Estimating the carbon
Synthesis, characterization and environmental assessment of
footprint of municipal water cycle. Journal American Water
nanosized MoS2 particles for lubricants applications. Chemical
Works Association, 104(5), 337e347. https://doi.org/10.5942/
Engineering Journal, 1(6), 195e196. https://doi.org/10.1016/
jawwa.2012.104.0064
j.cej.2012.04.080
Baldo, G. L., Marino, M., Montani, M., & Olof Ryding, S. (2009). The
Department for Environment. (2014). Guidelines for DEFRA/
carbon footprint measurement toolkit for EU Ecolabel.
DECC’s: Greenhouse gas conversion factor repository. Food &
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, 591e596.
rural affairs. Available at: http://www.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0115-3
ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/. (Accessed 28 August
Berge, B. (2009). The ecology of building materials (2nd ed., p. 427).
2019) Accessed.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Diotto, A. V., Folegatti, M. V., Duarte, S. N., & Romanelli, T. L.
Berry, R. S., & Fels, M. F. (1972). The production and consumption of
(2014). Embodied energy associated with the materials used in
automobiles: An energy analysis of the manufacture, discard and
irrigation systems: Drip and centre pivot. Biosystems
reuse of the automobile and its component materials. Illinois
Engineering, 121, 38e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/
institute for environmental quality report.
j.biosystemseng.2014.02.002
Boustead, I. (2005). Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry.
Doering, O. C. (1980). Accounting for energy in farm machinery
Plastics Europe, 19pp. Available at: http://www.inference.org.
and buildings. In D. Pimentel (Ed.), Handbook of energy
uk/sustainable/LCA/elcd/external_docs/ldpe_311147f4-fabd-
utilization in agriculture (pp. 9e14). Boca Raton: CRC.
11da-974d-0800200c9a66.pdf. (Accessed 17 September 2019).
Dyer, J. A., & Desjardins, R. L. (2006). Carbon dioxide emissions
Boustead, I., & Hancock, G. F. (1979). Handbook of industrial energy
associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm
analysis (p. 422). Chichester: Ellis Horwood Publ..
machinery in Canada. Biosystems Engineering, 93, 107e118.
Bowers, W. (1992). Agricultural field equipment. In R. C. Fluck
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.09.011
(Ed.), Energy in world agriculture (pp. 117e129). New York:
EPA, 430-R-15-004. (2014). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
Elsevier.
and sinks; 1990-2013 (p. 564). Pennsylvania: EPA.
Bravard, J. C., Flora, H. B., & Portal, C. (1972). Energy expenditures
EPE. (2009). Brazilian energy balance (p. 274). Brası́lia: Ministry of
associated with the production and recycle of metals, EP24. NSF:
Energy and Mines.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL.
Europe, B. (2012). Environmental commitment and performance (p.
Cahill, C., & Gallacho  ir, B. O. (2010). Monitoring energy efficiency
28p). Belgium: Bridgestone Europe.
trends in European industry: Which top-down methods hold
Feng, K., Siu, Y. L., Guan, D., & Hubacek, K. (2011). Assessing
be used. Energy Policy, 38, 6910e6918. https://doi.org/10.1016/
regional virtual water flows and water footprints in the yellow
j.enpol.2010.07.006
river basin, China: A consumption based approach. Applied
Carruth, M. A., Aallwood, J. M., & Moynihan, M. C. (2011). The
Geography, 32, 691e701. https://doi.org/10.1016/
technical potential for reducing metal requirements through
j.apgeog.2011.08.004
lightweight product design. Resources, Conservation and
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
Francke, I. C. M., & Castro, J. F. W. (2013). Carbon and water
footprint analysis of a soap bar produced in Brazil by Natura
Cosmetics. Water Resources and Industry, 1, 37e48. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.003
Franklin Associates. (2011). Life cycle inventory of 100%
postconsumer HDPE and PET recycled resin from
postconsumer containers and packaging. A Division of ERG,
Prairie village, 49pp. Available at: https://plasticsrecycling.org/
images/apr/2018-APR-Recycled-Resin-Report.pdf. (Accessed
18 September 2019) Accessed.
Girotti, G., Raimondi, A., Blengini, G. A., & Fino, D. (2011). The
contribution of lube additives to the life cycle impacts of Fully
Formulated petroleum-based lubricants. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 11, 1232e1240. https://doi.org/10.3844/
ajassp.2011.1232.1240
Hammond, G. P., & Jones, C. (2008). Embodied energy and carbon
in construction materials. Proceedings - Institution of Civil
Engineers: Energy. in press.
Hammond, G. P., & Li, B. (2016). Environmental and resource
burdens associated with world biofuel production out to 2050:
Footprint components from carbon emissions and land use to
waste arisings and water consumption. Bioenergy, 8, 894e908.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12300
Hassard, H. A., Couch, M. H., Techa-Erawan, T., & McLellan, B.
(2014). Product carbon footprint and energy analysis of
alternative coffee production in Japan. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 73, 310e321. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.02.006
Heitzmann, L. F., Ferraresi, G., Neis, A., Carvalho, E., Casa, F.,
Meire, J., & Reis Neto, O. P. (2001). Aplicaça ~o de materiais de fontes
renova veis na indústria automobilı́stica (p. 9). Sa
~ o Paulo: Daimler
Chrysler do Brasil.
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., &
Mekonnen, M. M. (2011). The water footprint assessment manual:
Setting the global standard. London, UK: Earthscan.
Hornacek, M. (1979). Application de l’analyse de energetique
a 14 exploitation agricoles. Etudes du CNEEMA, 457,
1e120.
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (1974). The competitiveness of
LDPE, PP and PVC after the 1963 oil crisis. London.
International Aluminium Institute. (2005). Aluminium for future
generations: Sustainability update. Available at: http://www.
worldaluminium.org/iai/publications/documents/%20update_
2005.pdf. (Accessed 13 January 2019).
IPCC. (2007). Industry. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of
the intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (p. 851).
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of
working groups III to 631 the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental Panel on climate Change 632. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/. (Accessed 25 January
2020).
^ gerskog, A., Clausen, T. J., Holmgren, T., & Lexe
Ja ^n, K. (2014).
Energy and water: The vital link for a sustainable future (p. 64).
Stockholm: SIWI.
Jefferies, D., Mun ~ oz, I., Hodges, J., King, V. J., Aldaya, M., Ertug, A.,
Mila  i Canals, L., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). Water Footprint and
Life Cycle Assessment as approaches to assess potential
impacts of products on water consumption. Key learning
points from pilot studies on tea and margarine. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 33, 155e166. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.04.015
Keyes, S., Tyedmers, P., & Beazley, K. (2015). Evaluating the
environmental impacts of conventional and organic apple
production in Nova Scotia, Canada, through life cycle
assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 40e51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.037
321
Lampridi, M., Kateris, D., Sorensen, C. G., & Bochtis, D. (2020).
Energy footprint of mechanized agricultural operations.
Energies, 13, 769e783. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030769
Lampridi, M., Sorensen, C. G., & Bochtis, D. (2019). Agricultural
sustainability: A review of concepts and methods.
Sustainability, 11, 5120e5146. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11185120
Leach, G., & Slesser, M. (1973). Energy equivalent of network inputs in
food production. Univeristy of Strathclyde.
Lee, J., Cho, H., Choi, B., Sung, J., Lee, S., & Shim, M. (2000). Life
cycle analysis of tractors. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 5(4), 205e208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979361
Leterrier, Y., Wyser, Y., & Manson, J. A. E. (1998). Durability in the
life cycle of polymer composites. In K. L. Reifsnider,
D. A. Dillard, & A. H. Cardon (Eds.), Progress in durability analysis
of composite systems (pp. 219e225). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Lombardi, M., Laiola, E., Tricase, C., & Rana, R. (2017). Assessing
the urban carbon footprint: An overview. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 66, 43e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eiar.2017.06.005
Mantoam, E. J., Mekonnen, M. M., & Romanelli, T. L. (2018).
Energy, water and material footprints of agricultural
machinery industry. E-Journal - CIGR, 20(3), 132e140. https://
cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/4831.
Mantoam, E. J., Milan, M., Gimenez, L. M., & RomanellI, T. L.
(2014). Embodied energy on sugarcane harvesters. Biosystems
Engineering, 118, 156e166. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biosystemseng.2013.12.003
Mantoam, E. J., Romanelli, T. L., & Gimenez, L. M. (2016). Energy
demand and greenhouse gases emissions in the life cycle of
tractors. Biosystems Engineering, 151, 158e170. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.028
Mantoam, E. J., Romanelli, T. L., Gimenez, L. M., & Milan, M. (2017).
Energy demand and greenhouse gases emissions in the life
cycle of coffee harvesters. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 58,
175e180. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1758030
Margolis, N., & Brindle, R. (2000). Energy and environmental profile of
the U.S. Iron and steel industry United States (p. 98p). American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Margolis, N., & Sousa, L. (1997). Energy and environmental profile of
the US iron and steel industry. United States: American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Marroquim, S. (1994). Uso da fibra de coco e la  tex na engenharia
automotiva: Memorial da crina-la tex do brasil (p. 50). Abreu e
Lima: ABRACOCO.
Martcheck, K. (2006). Modelling more sustainable aluminum.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(1), 34e37.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.01.231
Martins, J. P. (1997). The extraction-flocculation re-refining
lubricating oil process using ternary organic solvents.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 36(9), 3854e3858.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie960593f
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). The green, blue and
grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1577e1600. https://
doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011
Mekonnen, M. M., Romanelli, T. L., Ray, C., Hoekstra, A. Y.,
Liska, A. J., & Neale, C. M. U. (2018). Water, energy, and carbon
footprints of bioethanol from the U.S. and Brazil. Environmental
Science & Technology, 52, 14508e14518. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.8b03359
Mikkola, H. J., & Ahokas, J. (2010). Indirect energy input of
agricultural machinery in bioenergy production. Renewable
Energy, 35, 23e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.05.010
Morini, A. A., Ribeiro, M. J., & Hotza, D. (2019). Early-stage
materials selection based on embodied energy and carbon
footprint. Materials & Design, 178, 107861e107873. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107861
322 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 8 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 3 0 4 e3 2 2
Nagy, C. N. (2000). Energy and greenhouse gas coefficients inputs
used in agriculture. Report to the prairie adaptation Research
collaborative (PARC). The Canadian agricultural energy end-use
data and analysis centre (CAEEDAC) and centre for studies in
agriculture, law and the environment (CSALE).
Nakano, A., Taufiqu, N., & Sueyoshi, H. (2005). Removal of lead
from copper alloy scraps by compound-separation method.
Materials Transactions, 46, 2719e2724.
Newton, G. E. H. (1963). Fuel and productivity of pulp and paper
industry. Paper 11 to the Fuel and power conference (UK).
Porameswaren, K., & Nadkarni, R. (1975). Energy conservation in the
metal industries (p. 271). Metallurgical Society of American
Institute of Mining.
Pulselli, R. M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F. M., & Bastianoni, S. (2007).
Emergy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and
use: Em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability.
Energy and Buildings, 39, 620e628. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2006.10.004
Saari, A., Lettenmeier, M., Pusenius, K., & Hakkarainen, E. (2007).
Influence of vehicle type and road category on natural
resource consumption in road transport. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport And Environment, 12, 23e32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.10.005
Samples, D. K. (1974). Energy in the automobile. Seminar at the
Institute of Sciences and Technology. University of Michigan.
Sangaletti-Gerhard, N., Romanelli, T. L., Vieira, T. M. F. S.,
Navia, R., & Regitano-d’Arce, M. A. B. (2014). Energy flow in the
soybean biodiesel production chain using ethanol as solvent
extraction of oil from soybeans. Biomass and Bioenergy, 66,
39e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.004
Scalet, B. M., Garcia-Munoz, M., Sissa, A., Roudier, S., & Delgado
Sancho, L. (2013). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference
Document:for:Manufacture of Glass:Industrial Emissions Directive
2010/75/EU. (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control)
Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/
10.2791/69502
Sheehan, J., Camobreco, V., Duffield, J., Graboski, M., &
Shapouri, H. (1998). Life Cycle Inventory of petroleum diesel for use
in an urban bus. USDA, Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado.
Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/%20fy98/
24089.pdf. (Accessed 12 November 2019).
Sørensen, C. G., Halberg, N., Oudshoorn, F. W., Petersen, B. M., &
Dalgaard, R. (2014). Energy inputs and GHG emissions of tillage
systems. Biosystems Engineering, 120, 2e14. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.01.004
Spekken, M., Molin, J. P., & Romanelli, T. L. (2015). Cost of
boundary manoeuvres in sugarcane production. Biosystems
Engineering, 129, 112e126. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biosystemseng.2014.09.007
Stodolsky, F., Vyas, A., Cuenca, R., & Gaines, L. (1995). Life cycle
energy savings potential from aluminum-intensive vehicles.
Available at: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/106.
pdf. (Accessed 24 July 2019).
Tikana, L., Sievers, H., & Klasser, A. (2005). Life cycle assessment of
copper products. European copper Institute. Available at: http://
eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/resource/%20sources/5140044a-
4bec-11dc-8314-0800200c9a66/ECI_LCA_%20of_Copper_
Products_Report_5140044a-4bec-11dc-8314-0800%20200c9a66.
pdf;jsessionid¼05AF89B31CE66DD97BD02D2A0%207174A8E.
(Accessed 10 November 2019).
US EPA. (1974). Resource and environmental process analysis of nine
beverage container alternatives. Agency Report EPA/530/SW-91c.
Van Oel, P. R., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). Towards quantification of
the water footprint of paper: A first estimate of its
consumptive component. Water Resources Management, 26,
733e749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9942-7
Van der Velden, N. M., Kuusk, K., & Ko € hler, A. R. (2015). Life cycle
assessment and eco-design of smart textiles: The importance
of material selection demonstrated through e-textile product
redesign. Materials & Design, 84, 313e324. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.129
Wu, X., Hu, S., & Mo, S. (2013). Carbon footprint model for
evaluating the global warming impact of food transport
refrigeration systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54, 115e124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.045
Zhao, F., Ogaldez, J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2012). Quantifying the
water inventory of machining processes. CIRP Annals, 61,
67e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.027