Energy Reports

Energy use and environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production using
life cycle assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran
province, Iran
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: EGYR-D-22-02463R2

Article Type: Research Paper

Keywords: Cumulative exergy demand, Energy use, Greenhouse crops, Life cycle assessment

Abstract: Considering the energy used to control various factors and improve the environmental
conditions, more energy is consumed in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production.
For this reason study of energy indicators, environmental impacts and cumulative
exergy demand is one of the goals of this research. The results of energy use in
cucumber and tomato production were 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha -1 ,
respectively. Diesel fuel have the largest more than 60% share of energy consumption
in the production of cucumber and tomato. The comparison of energy use between
different inputs in two products showed no difference in the energy consumption of
biocides, electricity, diesel fuel and human labor of two products, but phosphate and
seed are the most different between cucumber and tomato products. The results of
energy indicators showed the ratio energy of tomato is higher than cucumber, also
energy productivity in tomato was more than cucumber. ReCiPe 2016 method was
used for calculation environmental impacts in this study, results showed the human
health category has more releases for cucumber than for tomato. Resource releases
are more relevant than the other categories and have significant amount for cucumber.
The highest environmental emissions are On-greenhouse emissions, diesel fuel and
electricity with a share of about 80%, 70% and 15%, respectively. Emissions from
tomato production were lower than cucumber production in all classification groups.
The cumulative exergy demand method examined the forms of renewable and non-
renewable energies. Non-renewable, fossil form had a significant share for cucumber
and tomato were (2802.88 MJ ton –1 , 1301.14 MJ ton –1 ), respectively. In various
forms of renewable and non-renewable energy, chemical fertilizers were more effective
than other inputs. According to the results of tomato production,

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Response to Reviewers

Energy Reports

Energy use and environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production using

life cycle assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran

province, Iran   (Manuscript Number: EGYR-D-22-02463R1).

Dear editor,

We would like to thank the referees for reviewing the manuscript ‘Energy use and

environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production using life cycle

assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran province, Iran

and for providing constructive suggestions and criticism. We have carefully reviewed their

comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

The suggestions and critical questions of the reviewers helped us to improve the quality of the

manuscript. We trust that our revisions lead to the acceptance of our paper for publication.

Please be assured that we are grateful for any additional suggestions or further comments.

Next, you will find our point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s comments (underline

text).

Best regards

The authors

1
Editor and Reviewer comments:

According to Reviewer #1's comment:

In its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal’s

required standard. You may wish to ask a native speaker to check your manuscript for

grammar, style and syntax, or use the professional language editing options available from

Elsevier Author Services: https://webshop.elsevier.com/

Reply: Thank you for your comment, the text of the paper was examined in terms of the

language structure of the English language and the changes in the text were identified in red.

Reviewer #1: The language of the article is so flawed that it is not suitable for publication in

this journal

See attachment.

Reply 1: Thank you for your comment, we revise article based on your comments and added

following red text in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript investigates an important area of Energy-economic analysis and

environmental impacts of the production of greenhouse crops (cucumber and tomato) using a

life cycle assessment approach, which has become increasingly crucial for environmental

sustainability under changing climate.

2
The manuscript is worthy of publication in this journal, but the major revision listed below

needs to be addressed before publication.

Nonetheless, my concrete comments are given below manuscript section-wise, which are

needed to solve and improve the manuscript quality.

Reply: Thank you very much for your time and effort in improving our document. Also we

appreciate your positive feedbacks about our research work. We tried to do our best in order

to improve the final version of the manuscript following your useful and constructive

considerations. The manuscript quality was improved as suggested. The structure and writing

was checked and revised accordingly. Also the results and discussion was revised and more

information was added.

Overall comments:

a. The manuscript presentation is not well enough; however, the grammatical issue and

sentence structure need to improve for better readership.

We revise article based on your comments and added following red text in the manuscript.

b. Authors should read the whole manuscript several times after correcting the comments

below section-wise with full concentration. And then, the whole manuscript needs to

refine/rewrite/reorganize sentences to maintain sentence consistency and subsequently

easy understanding for scientific readership from the preceding sentence to the running

sentence.

We must have read and revised the entire article several times.

c. References should be checked for improvement with the currently published article.

3
We revised the references currently published article and added following red text in the

manuscript.

d. The title should be changed to a catchy, fascinating title. The title should "Energy-

economic analysis and environmental impacts of greenhouse crops (cucumber and tomato)

production using life cycle assessment approach (Case study: Tehran province, Iran)" be

"Energy-economic analysis and environmental impacts of greenhouse crops production

using life cycle assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran

province, Iran".

Thank you for your comment, we revised the title and added following red text in the

manuscript.

Title: Energy use and environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production

using life cycle assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran

province, Iran

Abstract

1. The abstract section needs to substantially change as if it looks like a mirror of the whole

manuscript with the appropriate sentence structure as it is the heart of the manuscript.

Reply 1: We rewrite the abstract and added the following red text in the manuscript:

Considering the energy used to control various factors and improve the environmental

conditions, more energy is consumed in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production. For this

reason study of energy indicators, environmental impacts and cumulative exergy demand is

one of the goals of this research. The results of energy use in cucumber and tomato production

were 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. Diesel fuel have the largest more than

4
60% share of energy consumption in the production of cucumber and tomato. The comparison

of energy use between different inputs in two products showed no difference in the energy

consumption of biocides, electricity, diesel fuel and human labor of two products, but

phosphate and seed are the most different between cucumber and tomato products. The results

of energy indicators showed the ratio energy of tomato is higher than cucumber, also energy

productivity in tomato was more than cucumber. ReCiPe 2016 method was used for calculation

environmental impacts in this study, results showed the human health category has more

releases for cucumber than for tomato. Resource releases are more relevant than the other

categories and have significant amount for cucumber. The highest environmental emissions

are on-greenhouse emissions, diesel fuel and electricity with a share of about 80%, 70% and

15%, respectively. Emissions from tomato production were lower than cucumber production

in all classification groups. The cumulative exergy demand method examined the forms of

renewable and non-renewable energies. Non-renewable, fossil form had a significant share for

cucumber and tomato were (2802.88 MJ ton–1, 1301.14 MJ ton–1), respectively. In various

forms of renewable and non-renewable energy, chemical fertilizers were more effective than

other inputs. According to the results of tomato production, it is more preferable than cucumber

in terms of energy consumption and environmental effects. Also the design principles,

structure, location and common coverings in greenhouses, the necessary solutions to reduce

energy consumption for each area should be provided. The design of greenhouse systems with

high production capacity, minimum energy consumption and reduction of chemical fertilizers

should be considered.

2. The first sentence is not well written, it should be rewritten for sentence consistency. The

two aspects of background and aim of the study are incorporated into one; it should be either

in one elaborating sentence or can be separate sentences. Then the next sentence should be

5
followed which methods are applied to achieving this. Then the next is coming with the results,

where the results must be included sequentially, where the highest importance should be put

first, then the results should be added by following the importance. For this, authors should

look at the published article related to this.

Thank you for your comment, we revised the abstract based on your comments and added

following red text in the manuscript.

3. What is the contribution/novel finding from this manuscript? Authors should identify and

mention the finding in the results.

We revised the abstract based on your comments and added following red text in the

manuscript.

4. The last sentence should be added for policymakers who are responsible for taking the

actions.

We added in the abstract based on your comments.

5. The term 'ReCiPe' should elaborate for the first time.

We define the 'ReCiPe' model in material and methods, and added following red text in the

manuscript.

ReCiPe is a method for the life cycle impact assessment, the primary objective of the ReCiPe

method is to transform the long list of life cycle inventory results into a limited number of

indicator scores. These indicator scores express the relative severity on an environmental

impact category. In ReCiPe we determine indicators at two levels: 18 midpoint indicators and

6
three endpoint indicators. Each method (midpoint, endpoint) contains factors according to the

three cultural perspectives. These perspectives represent a set of choices on issues like time or

expectations that proper management or future technology development can avoid future

damages.

6. Figure 1 should be appropriate for graphical abstract.

According to your comment, we added Figure 1 for the graphic abstract.

Introduction

7. Sentences need to be rewritten for good sentence structure and standardization, which will

positively impact the whole manuscript when readers look at manuscript.

Thank you for your opinion, we rewrite the introduction section based on your comments and

added following red text in the manuscript.

8. I have read the introduction several times to understand the research rationale, aims, and

objectives. What authors need to do is rewrite/reorganize this section. The introduction should

clearly state the reason for the study, the hypothesis, and the essential background with recent

references. The manuscript should not be acceptable with this introduction section.

Thank you for your time, we rewrite the introduction section based on your comments and

added following red text in the manuscript.

9. Please write this section with the following questions to write the introduction.

- The first paragraph of the introduction needs to be written with the present relevant view with

the title content. For this, first needs to describe in the first paragraph the importance of

cucumber and tomato production related to the country's demand. Then relate it to the energy

consumption pros and cons.

7
- Then introduce the greenhouse cultures with the tomato and cucumber.

- LCA methods introduce to evaluate the energy analysis and its impact on the environmental

emissions

- Discuss literature review with the aspect of the views mentioned above.

- What is wrong/not found before, mentioned in this study?

- What is the gap between existing research and the present study?

- What did you do in this review research?

- Tell the aims/goals of this study.

Thank you for your comments, we rewrite the introduction section based on your comments

and added following red text in the manuscript.

10. The first paragraph was not given much importance in this study on why greenhouse culture

medium is necessary for crop production, which discusses the energy consumption with its

pros and cons. Authors should rewrite the sentences in this paragraph with the connecting

linking words for better readership.

We revised the first paragraph based on your comment.

11. In lines 54-59, why have the authors raised the limited fossil energy resources? It is not the

primary concern at all, and it should be better to discuss the drawback of fossil fuel use and

the environmental impacts of its use. Authors must delete it and rewrite sentences with the

views mentioned above.

We deleted the lines 54-59 and rewrite all sentences.

8
12. In the approach of life cycle assessment of energy use analysis and greenhouse emissions

perspective, the recently published article should be mentioned in Table 1. For this, the authors

could look at the following published article to get a better idea and citation: DOI:

10.1007/978-981-19-0534-6_5.

Thank you for your comments, we rewrite the Table 1 based on your comments.

13. The last paragraph needs to update the hypothesis's view according to the study's purpose.

We rewrite the last paragraph based on your comment.

Methodology

14. In line 113, the authors should correct this sentence, mentioned "Data from this study"

should be "Data for this study".

Thank you, we correct sentence in line 113.

15. In subsection 2.2.1 Energy equivalent value of inputs and outputs should be mentioned in

the Table, it looks like better readability. For this, authors should look at the published article,

"Designing an Energy Use Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental

Sustainability of Conservation Agriculture Wheat Farming in Bangladesh". DOI: 10.1007/978-

981-19-0534-6_5.

We revised subsection 2.2.1 based on your comments.

16. In line 265, CExD should be elaborate.

9
We revised CExD based on your comments.

CExD= Cumulative exergy demand

Results and Discussion

Please recheck the results and calculation sheets to delineate the exact and accurate amount to

be sure again.

17. This section is not well-written and descriptive, and there is no discussion on why these

results found for the inputs used. To ensure that the discussion is pertinent to the associated

results, the authors should carefully study the whole of this section.

Thank you for your comment, we rewrite the results and discussion based on your comment

and added following red text in the manuscript.

18. The subsection name should be changed from "Comparison of cucumber and tomato

energy analysis" to "inputs-outputs energy analysis in greenhouse cucumber and tomato

production" why do the authors go for the comparison between these two greenhouse

production? These two crops are different, so their energy analysis can not be comparable.

We revised "Comparison of cucumber and tomato energy analysis" based on your comments.

"Comparison of cucumber and tomato energy analysis"= "Inputs-outputs energy analysis in

greenhouse cucumber and tomato production"

Conclusion

19. The conclusion is well written and contains recommendations for policymakers. However,

some major findings should be mentioned numerically.

10
20. But unfortunately, the conclusions mentioned here are not described in the results and

discussion section. So, authors should take care of this; otherwise, the manuscript's

trustworthiness has raised questions that this manuscript is not considered for publication.

Thank you for your comments, we rewrite the conclusion based on your comments and added

following red text in the manuscript.

Conclusion: The development of greenhouses has increased the need for energy, the main

energy consumption in greenhouses is to heat the greenhouse space in the cold months and

air conditioning in the warm seasons. However, costs such as supplementary lighting,

automation system equipment and agricultural machinery should also be considered.

Limited fossil fuels and environmental pollution from their consumption and rising global

raw oil prices have necessitated the replacement of other renewable energy sources. The

goal of this study assessment of energy use, environmental impacts and CExD in greenhouse

cucumber and tomato production. The results of energy consumption of cucumber and

tomato is 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. Diesel fuel has the highest energy

consumption in the production of greenhouse cucumber and tomato. LCA results showed

the On-greenhouse emissions have the greatest impact on human health classification with

82% for cucumber and 78% for tomato. The human health category has more releases for

cucumber (0.012 DALY) than for tomato (0.004 DALY), resource releases are more

relevant than the other two categories, resources have significant amount for cucumber

(25.35 USD2013). CExD results showed all forms of renewable and non-renewable energy

for cucumber are greater than tomato. Non-renewable, fossil form has the highest energy

produced for cucumber (2802.88 MJ ton–1) and tomato (1301.14 MJ ton–1). The energy

forms obtained from the CExD method also result from the use of chemical fertilizers. Due

to greenhouse cultivation in a closed and controllable environment, the ecosystem category

11
 obtained by LCA method had the lowest emissions. In environmental analyzes, diesel fuel

also produces significant emissions. Optimal use of energy consumption in terms of plant

physiology and technical aspects, design and technical equipment used in the greenhouse

are discussed. Some energy sources such as solar, geothermal energy, industrial waste and

agricultural products are essential to replace fossil fuels in greenhouse energy. According to

the design principles, structure, location and common coverings in greenhouses, the

necessary solutions to reduce energy consumption for each area should be provided. The

design of greenhouse systems with high production capacity, minimum energy consumption

and reduction of chemical fertilizers should be considered, also food safety is ensured in

creating sustainable ecosystems. In addition, prediction and optimization of energy

consumption and environmental effects can be done for further research to help greenhouse

owners.

Reviewer #3: The study considers energy, economic, and environmental impact analysis of

two greenhouse crops using LCA method. Some comments and suggestions for the authors are

as follows:

Reply: Thank you very much for your time and effort in improving our document.

1. Please revise the title. If you want to mention the case study in the title, please do so without

the braces.

12
Reply 1: Thank you for your comment, we revised the title and added following red text in the

manuscript.

Title: Energy use and environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production

using life cycle assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran

province, Iran

2. The abstract needs to be revised to include at least one sentence per each of the following

aspects: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, and,

conclusion.

Reply 2: We rewrite the abstract based on your comments and added the following red text in

the manuscript:

Abstract: Considering the energy used to control various factors and improve the

environmental conditions, more energy is consumed in greenhouse cucumber and tomato

production. For this reason study of energy indicators, environmental impacts and cumulative

exergy demand is one of the goals of this research. The results of energy use in cucumber and

tomato production were 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. Diesel fuel have the

largest more than 60% share of energy consumption in the production of cucumber and

tomato. The comparison of energy use between different inputs in two products showed no

difference in the energy consumption of biocides, electricity, diesel fuel and human labor of

two products, but phosphate and seed are the most different between cucumber and tomato

products. The results of energy indicators showed the ratio energy of tomato is higher than

cucumber, also energy productivity in tomato was more than cucumber. ReCiPe 2016 method

was used for calculation environmental impacts in this study, results showed the human health

13
category has more releases for cucumber than for tomato. Resource releases are more relevant

than the other categories and have significant amount for cucumber. The highest

environmental emissions are on-greenhouse emissions, diesel fuel and electricity with a share

of about 80%, 70% and 15%, respectively. Emissions from tomato production were lower

than cucumber production in all classification groups. The cumulative exergy demand method

examined the forms of renewable and non-renewable energies. Non-renewable, fossil form

had a significant share for cucumber and tomato were (2802.88 MJ ton–1, 1301.14 MJ ton–1),

respectively. In various forms of renewable and non-renewable energy, chemical fertilizers

were more effective than other inputs. According to the results of tomato production, it is

more preferable than cucumber in terms of energy consumption and environmental effects.

Also the design principles, structure, location and common coverings in greenhouses, the

necessary solutions to reduce energy consumption for each area should be provided. The

design of greenhouse systems with high production capacity, minimum energy consumption

and reduction of chemical fertilizers should be considered.

3. The contributions of the present study to the existing body of knowledge need to be further

explained at the end of the Introduction section.

Reply 3: Thank you, we revised introduction section based on your comments.

4. The language of the manuscript is poor and contains plenty of grammatical errors and

typos. This should be improved accordingly.

Reply 4: Thank you for your comment, the text of the paper was examined in terms of the

language structure of the English language and the changes in the text were identified in red.

5. The energy input-output coefficients from Section 2.2.1 are suggested to put in a table.

14
Reply 5: Thank you for your comment, we rewrite the section 2.2.1 based on your comments

and added following red text in the manuscript.

Table 3
Energy equivalent value of inputs and outputs in cucumber and tomato production.
Items Unit Energy equivalent (MJ unit-1) References
A. Inputs
1. Human labor h 1.96 (Kaab et al., 2019)
2. Machinery kg yra 142.70 (Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016)
3. Diesel fuel L 56.31 (Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016)
4. Chemical fertilizers kg
(a) Nitrogen 66.14 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 12.44 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
(c) potassium 11.15 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
5. Biocides kg 120.00 (Ozkan et al., 2007)
7. Electricity kWh 12.00 (Ghasemi-Mobtaker et al., 2020)
8. Cucumber seed kg 1.00 (Khoshnevisan et al., 2014a)
8. Tomato seed kg 1.00 (Taki et al., 2013)
B. Output kg
1. Cucumber kg 0.80 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
2. Tomato kg 0.80 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
a
The economic life of machine (year).

6. Line 161: "net energy efficiency or net energy produced"- are these two indicate the same

parameter? Also, what does NEG stand for?

Reply 6: Thank you for your comment, we rewrite the sentence "net energy efficiency or net

energy produced" based on your comment to clear up the confusion and added following red

text in the manuscript.

Net energy gain is the difference between the gross energy produced and the total energy

required for production. In the agricultural process, the net energy gain unit depends on the

production unit. In this study, this index is measured in MJ ha-1 (Equation 3) (Demircan et

al., 2006).

Net energy gain= Output energy (MJ ha-1) - Input energy (MJ ha-1) (3)

15
7. Please recheck the units in Equation 3. How are you getting the outcome of net energy in

MJ/ha unit if input and output energies are measured in MJ?

Thank you, we checked the unit of Equation 3, Input and output energy was calculated in terms

of MJ ha-1, so the result of this Equation 3 is MJ ha-1.

7. Could you please use separate (indented) headings for the different study indicators?

Thank you for your opinion, in this study, 4 energy indicators were used, and we included all

of them in one heading, it seems unreasonable to include each index in a separate heading.

9. Please further explain the results presented in Figure 5.

We explain the results in Figure 5 and added following red text in the manuscript.

10. The result and discussion section need to be improved. Instead of simply repeating the

results that are already present in the Tables and Figures, please include your comments on the

results.

Thank you for your comment, we rewrite the results and discussion based on your comment

and added following red text in the manuscript.

11. Please clearly rewrite the Conclusion section to include brief methodology, key findings,

limitations, and future research directions.

We rewrite the conclusion based on your comment and added following red text in the

manuscript.

16
Conclusion: The development of greenhouses has increased the need for energy, the main

energy consumption in greenhouses is to heat the greenhouse space in the cold months and

air conditioning in the warm seasons. However, costs such as supplementary lighting,

automation system equipment and agricultural machinery should also be considered.

Limited fossil fuels and environmental pollution from their consumption and rising global

raw oil prices have necessitated the replacement of other renewable energy sources. The

goal of this study assessment of energy use, environmental impacts and CExD in greenhouse

cucumber and tomato production. The results of energy consumption of cucumber and

tomato is 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. Diesel fuel has the highest energy

consumption in the production of greenhouse cucumber and tomato. LCA results showed

the On-greenhouse emissions have the greatest impact on human health classification with

82% for cucumber and 78% for tomato. The human health category has more releases for

cucumber (0.012 DALY) than for tomato (0.004 DALY), resource releases are more

relevant than the other two categories, resources have significant amount for cucumber

(25.35 USD2013). CExD results showed all forms of renewable and non-renewable energy

for cucumber are greater than tomato. Non-renewable, fossil form has the highest energy

produced for cucumber (2802.88 MJ ton–1) and tomato (1301.14 MJ ton–1). The energy

forms obtained from the CExD method also result from the use of chemical fertilizers. Due

to greenhouse cultivation in a closed and controllable environment, the ecosystem category

obtained by LCA method had the lowest emissions. In environmental analyzes, diesel fuel

also produces significant emissions. Optimal use of energy consumption in terms of plant

physiology and technical aspects, design and technical equipment used in the greenhouse

are discussed. Some energy sources such as solar, geothermal energy, industrial waste and

agricultural products are essential to replace fossil fuels in greenhouse energy. According to

the design principles, structure, location and common coverings in greenhouses, the

17
necessary solutions to reduce energy consumption for each area should be provided. The

design of greenhouse systems with high production capacity, minimum energy consumption

and reduction of chemical fertilizers should be considered, also food safety is ensured in

creating sustainable ecosystems. In addition, prediction and optimization of energy

consumption and environmental effects can be done for further research to help greenhouse

owners.

Best Regards

18
Graphical Abstract
Revised manuscript (clean version)

1 Energy use and environmental impacts analysis of greenhouse crops production using

2 life cycle assessment approach: A Case study of cucumber and tomato from Tehran

3 province, Iran

4 Abstract

5 Considering the energy used to control various factors and improve the environmental

6 conditions, more energy is consumed in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production. For

7 this reason study of energy indicators, environmental impacts and cumulative exergy demand

8 is one of the goals of this research. The results of energy use in cucumber and tomato

9 production were 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. Diesel fuel have the largest

10 more than 60% share of energy consumption in the production of cucumber and tomato. The

11 comparison of energy use between different inputs in two products showed no difference in

12 the energy consumption of biocides, electricity, diesel fuel and human labor of two products,

13 but phosphate and seed are the most different between cucumber and tomato products. The

14 results of energy indicators showed the ratio energy of tomato is higher than cucumber, also

15 energy productivity in tomato was more than cucumber. ReCiPe 2016 method was used for

16 calculation environmental impacts in this study, results showed the human health category

17 has more releases for cucumber than for tomato. Resource releases are more relevant than the

18 other categories and have significant amount for cucumber. The highest environmental

19 emissions are On-greenhouse emissions, diesel fuel and electricity with a share of about 80%,

20 70% and 15%, respectively. Emissions from tomato production were lower than cucumber

21 production in all classification groups. The cumulative exergy demand method examined the

22 forms of renewable and non-renewable energies. Non-renewable, fossil form had a

23 significant share for cucumber and tomato were (2802.88 MJ ton–1, 1301.14 MJ ton–1),

24 respectively. In various forms of renewable and non-renewable energy, chemical fertilizers

25 were more effective than other inputs. According to the results of tomato production, it is

1
26 more preferable than cucumber in terms of energy consumption and environmental effects.

27 Also the design principles, structure, location and common coverings in greenhouses, the

28 necessary solutions to reduce energy consumption for each area should be provided. The

29 design of greenhouse systems with high production capacity, minimum energy consumption

30 and reduction of chemical fertilizers should be considered.

31 Keywords: Cumulative exergy demand, Energy use, Greenhouse crops, Life cycle assessment

32

33 1. Introduction

34 Cucumber is one of the most popular products in Iran, this product has excellent potential for

35 cultivation in greenhouses. Cucumber production in greenhouse have a beautiful appearance

36 and thick green skin, but the main problem of greenhouse cucumber is the strong toxins that

37 are applied to these products, also tomato is the most popular and profitable product in the

38 world (Mohammadi and Omid, 2010). Therefore, the species considered in tomato cultivation

39 correspond to the type of consumption, in most parts of the world, greenhouse owners harvest

40 tomato twice a year using the right temperature control and high light supply. Conditions

41 inside the greenhouse must be carefully managed so that various factors do not cause plant

42 disease (Esengun et al., 2007). Economy is one of the most important reasons for setting up a

43 tomato and cucumber greenhouse. Although setting up a greenhouse requires a significant

44 initial cost, multi-stage harvesting and short harvest time can be considered as its advantages

45 (Khoshnevisan et al., 2014a). Cucumber (1585380) ton and tomato (214383) ton were

46 reported in Iranian greenhouses with yield of 243 and 275 ton ha-1, respectively (Ministry of

47 Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran, 2020). The global greenhouse production system has caused

48 significant changes in the pattern of energy consumption in the agricultural sector due to its

49 greater dependence on fertilizers and chemical pesticides (Gallego et al., 2011). The producer

2
50 goal of the agricultural sector is determined by environmental, geographical and economic

51 conditions (Ghorbani et al., 2011).

52 Examining the energy use efficacy depends on the type of product and material used in

53 production, energy analysis plays an essential role in the sustainability of production,

54 economic optimization of the system and preservation of fossil fuel reserves and reduction of

55 air pollution by identifying the existing shortcomings (Ozkan et al., 2011). Globally, carbon

56 dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the most important greenhouse

57 gases produced by human activities. The heat and electricity sectors generate about 25% of

58 total greenhouse gases, followed by agriculture and industry, which account for 24% and

59 21% of pollution, respectively (Edenhofer, 2015). Product and commodity has a life cycle

60 that begins with product design and development. Then resource extraction, product

61 manufacturing, sorting, consumption, recycling and landfilling of waste continue (Brentrup et

62 al., 2004; Longo et al., 2017). An implementation framework known as life cycle assessment

63 (LCA) is used to estimate environmental pollutions (Kaab et al., 2019a).

64 Combining the protection of natural environments with human health and the use of

65 perspective into the life cycle leads to improved food compatibility with the environment

66 (Nemecek et al., 2007). The LCA is known by calculating and evaluating the two

67 components of resource consumption and emissions of various pollutants. However, in order

68 to further protect the environment, technological advances, quality and the use of modern

69 methods in various fields are needed (Guinée, 2002). Proper use of energy in all consumer

70 sectors can lead to sustainable production, economic production, reducing fossil fuel

71 consumption and preventing air pollution. Therefore, energy management is the only and

72 closest way to make the most of available resources and fuels (Dewulf et al., 2007). In fact,

73 reducing energy consumption, using renewable energy sources, efficient use of materials,

74 reuse and recycling of materials and control of pollutants contribute to the sustainability of

3
75 production. The study of energy from the perspective of cumulative exergy demand can play

76 an important role in greenhouse production (Bösch et al., 2007).

77 There are a lot of study about energy-LCA in agricultural product showed in Table 1. For

78 example, Cellura et al. (2012) performed an LCA of protected crops in Italy and reported that

79 for all the examined vegetables, including peppers, melons, tomato, cherry tomato, and

80 zucchini, the packaging step and the greenhouse structures accounted for a substantial share

81 in the environmental impact distribution. Dias et al. (2017) about the tomato greenhouses in

82 Canada found that heating with fossil fuels is responsible for 50% to 85% of the overall

83 impact for global warming potential, ozone depletion, and respiratory effects.

84 Due to energy consumption to control various factors and improve environmental conditions

85 in the production of greenhouse cucumber and tomato, more energy is consumed. For this

86 reason, it is necessary to study the flow of energy and identify the factors that lead to

87 increased energy consumption. Given the above, the main purpose of the present study for

88 energy analysis is to estimate the total energy produced, the inputs energy in the two

89 greenhouse systems and related indicators. Considering the excessive consumption of

90 cucumber and tomato in Iran and the need to produce it on a very large scale, there is a need

91 to finance greenhouses. In the following, by calculating the incomes and costs of the two

92 products in greenhouses, the discussion of profitability and productivity will be mentioned.

93 On the other hand, higher consumption of fossil fuels and greenhouse structure leads to a

94 significant increase in pollutant emissions in greenhouse cultivation compared to field

95 cultivation. Therefore, environmental assessment of greenhouse production is essential to

96 identify important sources of energy consumption and emissions.

97

98

99

4
 Table1
Review the background of various researches on energy use and LCA.
Reference Case study Location Energy LCA Hotspot
Canakci and Akinci, (2006) Vegetable Turkey   Wood material
Mouron et al. (2006) Apple Switzerland   Machinery & pesticides
Hatirli et al. (2006a) Tomato Turkey   Diesel & fertilizer
Ozkan et al. (2011) Tomato Turkey   Fertilizer & electricity
Pishgar-Komleh et al. (2011) Cucumber Iran   Diesel fuel & electricity
Martin-Gorriz et al. (2014) Fruit & vegetable Spain   Fertilizer
Khoshnevisan et al. (2014a) Strawberry Iran   Chemical fertilizer
Mohammadi-Barsari et al. (2016) Watermelon Iran   Machinery
Ali et al. (2017) Cucumber & tomato Pakistan   Fertilizer & machinery
Vinyes et al. (2017) Apple & peach Spain   Fruit losses
Bosona and Gebresenbet, (2018) Tomato Sweden   Packaging & drying
Paramesh et al. (2018) Arecanut India   Human labor & irrigation
Zarei et al. (2019) Cucumber & tomato Iran   Diesel fuel & natural gas
Esmaeilzadeh et al. (2020) Onion Iran   Machinery & electricity
Naderi et al. (2020) Apple Iran   Diesel fuel & manure
Rahman et al. (2022) Wheat Bangladesh   Diesel & fertilizer
Hesampour et al. (2022) Cucumber Iran   Chemical fertilizers
Present study Cucumber & Tomato Iran   Diesel & fertilizer
100

101 In Tehran province, Iran, one of the daily needs of urban society is to supply fresh food as

102 soon as possible. Also, due to the large number of apartments and the lack of enough space to

103 grow plants in homes, flowers and ornamental plants have many fans. For this reason,

104 building a greenhouse in Tehran is one of the needs of this great city. Also, some of these

105 greenhouses are used for research and educational purposes. This province is an important

106 area for producing greenhouses crops in Iran, a comprehensive investigation of energy and

107 LCA in greenhouse production is considered as a main purpose of this study. To achieve the

108 objectives of this research, it is necessary to perform the following evaluation steps:

109  Energy use analysis of cucumber and tomato greenhouse production.

110  Assessment of the impact points in energy production to manage energy consumption

111 and reduce environmental impacts.

112  ReCiPe 2016 method was used for investigation of environmental impacts in different

113 greenhouses crops.

5
114  Discussion of the sources calculated from the cumulative exergy demand method in

115 different greenhouses crops.

116  Determining the best greenhouses crops according to the least amount of pollution and

117 energy in production processes.

118

119 2. Methodology

120 2.1. Data collection site

121 Data for this study were collected from greenhouse owners in Tehran province (35° 42ˊ N,

122 51° 19ˊ E) of Iran using a questionnaire. Tehran is the most populous province and capital of

123 Iran. Sample size for greenhouse cucumber and tomato production was calculated for energy,

124 and environmental analyzes using Equation 1. Information about Equation 1 and the

125 condition of greenhouses in Tehran province is reported in Table 2 (Cochran, 1977; Ministry

126 of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran, 2020).

z 2 pq
n d2
(1)
1 z 2 pq
1  ( 2  1)
N d

127

Table 2
Information about Cochran's formula and greenhouses in Tehran province.
Factor Description Amount
N Number of target population 120
z Reliability coefficient 1.96
p & q (1-p) Estimated ratio of attributes 0.5
d Permitted error ratio deviation 0.05
Greenhouse area (ha) Equivalent to 21% of the country's greenhouse area 2038 ha
Number of active greenhouses Equivalent to 12% of active greenhouses in the country 2476
The amount of greenhouse products (ton) Equivalent to 30% of the country's products 467000 ton
128

129 2.2. Energy analysis method

130 Energy has different forms and all its forms have the capacity to do work and divided into

131 two types: direct (DE) and indirect (IDE). DE is used directly for agricultural activities,

6
132 including human labor, diesel fuel and electricity are among the direct sources of energy

133 (Alam et al., 2005). IDE is a type of energy that was used before the greenhouse to produce

134 inputs, including machinery, chemical fertilizers, biocides and seeds are among the indirect

135 sources of energy (Singh et al., 2002). Each of two types of direct and indirect energy is

136 divided into two types: renewable (RE) and non-renewable (NRE). RE is produced or

137 converted in a short time, (human labor and seed) are among the renewable energy sources

138 (Heydari et al., 2015). NRE is not produced or converted in the short term, (fossil fuel,

139 biocide, chemical fertilizer and agricultural machinery) energy are among the non-renewable

140 energy sources (Dalgaard et al., 2001).

141 2.2.1. Energy equivalent of inputs and outputs

142 Energy is one of the most important and vital data in people's lives and a basic need for

143 continued economic development, social welfare, improving the quality of life and security of

144 society (Ghasemi-Mobtaker et al., 2020). The energy content of each of the inputs and outputs

145 indicates the energy equivalent (Unakitan et al., 2010). Production inputs are used directly or

146 indirectly in the production process. Inputs of greenhouse crops production including human

147 labor, machinery, diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers, biocides, electricity and seeds. Due to the

148 different inputs and outputs of cultivation with different units, comparisons are difficult in

149 these conditions. As a result, all inputs and outputs were converted into energy equivalents

150 through special coefficients. The energy equivalent of each of the inputs is reported in Table 3.

Table 3
Energy equivalent value of inputs and outputs in cucumber and tomato production.
Items Unit Energy equivalent (MJ unit-1) References
A. Inputs
1. Human labor h 1.96 (Kaab et al., 2019)
2. Machinery kg yra 142.70 (Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016)
3. Diesel fuel L 56.31 (Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016)
4. Chemical fertilizers kg
(a) Nitrogen 66.14 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 12.44 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
(c) potassium 11.15 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
5. Biocides kg 120.00 (Ozkan et al., 2007)
7. Electricity kWh 12.00 (Ghasemi-Mobtaker et al., 2020)
8. Cucumber seed kg 1.00 (Khoshnevisan et al., 2014a)
8. Tomato seed kg 1.00 (Taki et al., 2013)

7
 B. Output kg
1. Cucumber kg 0.80 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
2. Tomato kg 0.80 (Unakitan et al., 2010)
a
The economic life of machine (year).
151

152 2.2.2.Energy indicators

153 Indicators are used as a tool to compare systems, there are four important energy indicators

154 that can comprehensively understand the energy situation in agriculture (Ghasemi-Mobtaker

155 et al., 2012). After examining the different stages of the energy production and consumption

156 in products can be calculated by different methods (Ali et al., 2017). The ratio between the

157 value of the output products and the total energy expended in the factors of production is

158 called the energy ratio (Equation 2). This index lacks a unit and shows the effect of the input

159 energy unit in achieving consumer goals, target of consumer can be food, biomass or biofuels

160 and products. This index is calculated using the information collected in this study (Canakci

161 and Akinci, 2006).

Output energy (MJ )

Energy use efficiency  (2)
Input energy (MJ )

162

163 Net energy gain is the difference between the gross energy produced and the total energy

164 required for production. In the agricultural process, the net energy gain unit depends on the

165 production unit. In this study, this index is measured in MJ ha-1 (Equation 3) (Demircan et al.,

166 2006).

Net energy gain= Output energy (MJ ha-1) - Input energy (MJ ha-1) (3)

167

168 Energy productivity index is the amount of product per unit of input energy (Equation 4).

169 Energy productivity varies depending on the product, place and time. This index can be used

170 as an indicator to evaluate the energy in the production system with a specific product. To

8
171 improve productivity in a process, energy consumption in input generation can be reduced

172 and product performance can be improved (Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2011).

Production (kg)
Energy productivi ty  (4)
Input energy (MJ)

173

174 Specific energy is the ratio of the total input energy to the amount of the output product and is

175 determined in MJ kg-1. In fact, this index is the opposite of energy productivity and expresses

176 the energy consumed to produce each unit of product (Sartori et al., 2005).

Input energy (MJ)

Specific energy  (5)
Production (kg)

177

178 2.3. LCA analysis method

179 Currently, environmental issues are the most important global issues in many countries. One

180 of the topics of interest to the world community in recent years includes having sufficient

181 information about the environmental status of countries and examining the trend of

182 environmental change (Khanali et al., 2017). Among the various methods for the

183 environmental study of processes and the production of crops and services, the use of LCA is

184 required. The LCA method includes a set of systematic methods for collecting and evaluating

185 materials, input and output energy, and environmental impacts associated with a production

186 system over its life cycle (de Backer et al., 2009). The LCA process helps decision makers

187 choose the product or process with the least environmental impact. LCA also prevents the

188 transmission of environmental problems from one stage to another (Coltro et al., 2006). In

189 general, this method is divided into four parts: expressing the purpose and reference unit,

190 determining the inputs and outputs of the system, assessing the environmental impacts and

191 interpretation (Martin-Gorriz et al., 2014). The following are four sections:

9
192 Step 1: The goal of the research must first be clear, in this study, the goal of this study is to

193 investigate the environmental effects of greenhouse cucumber and tomato production by

194 LCA method. The scope of evaluation of a life cycle should clearly define the function

195 (system performance characteristics) being studied. The functional unit should be compatible

196 with the purpose and scope of the study (Romero-Gámez et al., 2014). In fact, a functional

197 unit is a quantitative description of the service system or product of the process under

198 consideration. Three different functional units have been proposed for evaluating agricultural

199 products based on unit area, currency unit and mass unit of production material (ISO, 2006).

200 In this study, the functional unit one ton of cucumber and tomato produced in greenhouses of

201 Tehran province was considered. The boundary of the system determines the processes that

202 must be included in the LCA. The choice of system boundary should be consistent with the

203 purpose of the study (de Backer et al., 2009). The criteria used to establish the system

204 boundary must be identified and explained. The decision should be the same as the unit of

205 processes included in the study. The details of the process unit must also be studied

206 (Taherzadeh-Shalmaei et al., 2021). In this system, the boundaries of the study start from the

207 preparation and entry of inputs into the greenhouse and end with the harvest of cucumber and

208 tomato (Figure 1).

10
 Fig. 1. Boundary of greenhouse cucumber and tomato system in Tehran province, Iran

209

210 Step 2: In this section, all amounts of pollutants released into the environment are determined

211 by the use of these inputs. These values are then calculated based on functional units

212 (Paramesh et al., 2018). The quality of data collected for inventory analysis is a critical factor

213 in the successful implementation of LCA. Achieving reliable data is an important factor in

214 the development and use of LCA in environmental management (Cellura et al., 2012). The

215 main result of this step is to provide a table of lists of inputs (materials and energy) and

216 outputs (emissions to the environment) per functional unit. The calculated values are

217 considered as input for the effect evaluation stage (Pirlo et al., 2014). Data from the

218 EcoInvent database were used to calculate the rate of emission of indirect environmental

219 pollutants (Off-greenhouse) due to the use of chemical fertilizers, diesel fuel, human labor

11
220 and biocides produced. On the other hand, the standard equations provided by IPCC have

221 been used to calculate the emission of pollutants due to the consumption of inputs (Edenhofer,

222 2015). Table 4 shows the list analysis for each MJ of diesel fuel emissions. Emissions of the

223 most important greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and

224 methane (CH4) from burning per liter of diesel were 74.5 g, 2.86E-03 g and 3.08E-03 g,

225 respectively. The emissions of SO2 and NOx pollutants were 2.41E-02 g and 1.06 g per liter

226 of diesel, respectively. Coefficients for converting pollutants calculated by the above

227 equations to their functional values are also presented in Table 5. The amount of emissions of

228 each of the inputs to the weather is reported. The chemical fertilizers used contain heavy

229 metals, contaminants enter the soil. The coefficients for calculating greenhouse gas emissions

230 in the soil are given in Table 6.

Table 4
Equivalent On-greenhouse emission of 1 MJ diesel fuel for 1 MJ
burning in EcoInvent database.
Emission Amount (g MJ-1 diesel)
CO2 74.5
SO2 2.41E-02
CH4 3.08E-03
Benzene 1.74E-04
Cd 2.39E-07
Cr 1.19E-06
Cu 4.06E-05
N2O 2.86E-03
Ni 1.67E-06
Zn 2.39E-05
Benzo (a) pyrene 7.16E-07
NH3 4.77E-04
Se 2.39E-07
PAH 7.85E-05
HC, as NMVOC 6.80E-02
NOx 1.06
CO 1.50E-01
Particulates (b2.5 μm) 1.07E-01
231

232

233

234

235

12
Table 5
Coefficients for calculating On-greenhouse emissions related to application of inputs in
greenhouse cucumber and tomato production (IPCC, 2006).
Characteristic Coefficient (Emission result)
A. Emissions of fertilizers
 kg N 2O  N 
1   0.01 (to air)
 kg N in fertilzers applied 
 kg NH3 - N 
2   0.1 (to air)
 kg N in fertilizers applied 
 kg N 2 O - N 
3   0.001 (to air)
 kg N in atmospheric deposition 
 kg NO3  N 
4   0.1 (to water)
 kg N in fertilizers applied 
 kg P emission 
5   0.02 (to water)
 kg P in fertilizers applied 

 kg NO 
6  x  0.21 (to air)
 kg N 2 O from fertilizers and soil 
 
B. Conversion of emissions
 44 
1 Coversion from kg CO2 – C to kg CO2  
 12 
 44 
2 Coversion from kg N2O – N to kg N2O  
 28 
 17 
3 Conversion from kg NH3 - N to kg NH3  
 14 
 62 
4 Conversion from kg NO3 - N to kg NO3  
 14 
 62 
5 Conversion from kg P2O5 to kg P  
 164 
C. Emissions from human labor
 kg CO 2 
1  man - h Human labor  0.7 (to air)

D. Emissions from biocides

 kg effective material 
1   0.1 (to air)
 kg biocides 
 kg effective material 
2   0.85 (to soil)
 kg biocides 

13
236

Table 6
Coefficients for calculation On-greenhouse emissions to soil of heavy metal related to application of chemical fertilizers in
greenhouse cucumber and tomato production (IPCC, 2006).
Heavy metals
Characteristic
Cd Cu Zn Pb Ni Cr Hg
 mg Heavy metal 
1   6 26 203 5409 20.9 77.9 0.1
 kg N in fertilzer applied 

 
2  mg Heavy metal  39.5 90.5 839 67 88.3 543 0.3
 kg P2O5 
 in fertilzer applied 

 mg Heavy metal 
3   0.1 4.8 6.2 0.8 2.5 5.8 0
 kg K 2O in fertilzer applied 

 mg Heavy metal 
4
 
 kg Dry material of cow manure in fertilzer applied 

452.3 1018 13.6 17.4 13.2 0.08 452.2

237

238 Step 3: The purpose of this step is to quantitatively analyze the results of the life cycle audit

239 section. Life cycle impact assessment is divided into three sub-categories: classification,

240 normalization, and weighting (Martin-Gorriz et al., 2014). In the life cycle impact assessment

241 phase, the set of results of the previous phase is interpreted based on environmental impacts.

242 At the end of this step, a list of effect groups is defined and modeled for environmental

243 interventions related to the appropriate indicators of the effect groups (Mouron et al., 2006).

244 In the classification stage, the coefficient or weight of each pollutant is applied to different

245 impact groups. In other words, by multiplying the factor of pollutants in the form of different

246 impact groups in the amount of pollutants consumption, the classification index of each

247 impact group was calculated (Antón et al., 2014). In this study, the environmental impact

248 assessment method was performed based on the ReCiPe 2016 model. ReCiPe is a method for

249 the life cycle impact assessment, the primary objective of the ReCiPe method is to transform

14
250 the long list of life cycle inventory results into a limited number of indicator scores. These

251 indicator scores express the relative severity on an environmental impact category. In ReCiPe

252 determine indicators at two levels: 18 midpoint indicators and three endpoint indicators. Each

253 method (midpoint, endpoint) contains factors according to the three cultural perspectives.

254 These perspectives represent a set of choices on issues like time or expectations that proper

255 management or future technology development can avoid future damages. This model has

256 been used in extensive research in the field of agricultural production. Accordingly, the

257 endpoint area of human health is defined by the categories increase in respiratory disease,

258 increase in various types of cancer, increase in other diseases/causes and increase in

259 malnutrition. The endpoint area of ecosystem damage was examined with three subgroups

260 damage to freshwater species, terrestrial species and marine species. Resource damage

261 category includes increased extraction costs (Mostashari-Rad et al., 2019).

262 Step 4: All steps ultimately lead to the interpretation of the results, the final indicators were

263 classified into three groups: damage to human health, ecosystems and resource availability.

264 The purpose of interpreting the results is to determine the limitations, recommendations, and

265 findings of the life cycle impact assessment phase to assist decision makers. As a result,

266 decisions about environmental pollutants are improved (Ruviaro et al., 2012).

267 2.4. Cumulative exergy demand method

268 Exergy helps analyze energy and other systems and processes (Bösch et al., 2007). Also,

269 makes better use of the environmental benefits and economics of energy technologies.

270 Exergy analysis has been used to analyze the use of energy in a country to better understand

271 the efficiency of energy use. Exergy the system is the most useful work possible during a

272 process that balances the system with the environment (Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016).

273 Cumulative exergy index is expressed as the total exergy of all resources for production. The

274 quality of energy sources as well as non-energy sources is also examined (Hischier et al.,

15
275 2015). This method includes 7 indices of renewable energy and non-renewable energy effect

276 categories, the sum of which was considered as cumulative exergy demand (Figure 2).

277

Fig. 2. Configurations of cumulative exergy demand components to evaluate energy forms in

greenhouse cucumber and tomato production.

278

279 3. Results and discussion

280 3.1. Inputs-outputs energy analysis in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production

281 The energy inputs-outputs in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production showed in Table 7.

282 According to the results made in this section, the input energy in cucumber and tomato were

283 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. The energy consumption of tomato is

284 7506.24 MJ ha-1 more than the cucumber crop. The output energy is 104982.94 and

285 228281.37 MJ ha-1 in cucumber and tomato, respectively. The amount of energy produced by

286 tomato is 123298.43 MJ ha-1 more than the energy produced by cucumber. The share of

16
287 energy consumption in cucumber and tomato of each inputs is shown in Fig. 3. Due to results,

288 Diesel fuel, electricity, nitrogen and human labor have the largest share of energy with about

289 60, 12, 11 and 8%, respectively. According to another study in greenhouse cucumber and

290 strawberry, diesel fuel had the largest share in energy consumption (Khoshnevisan et al.,

291 2013; 2014a). The main energy consumption is related to greenhouse heating in Iranian

292 greenhouses. Ozkan et al. (2011) showed the average yield and energy consumption are

293 57905.1 kg ha-1 and 61434.5 MJ ha-1, respectively. Energy use pattern of greenhouse tomato

294 showed that the highest amount of energy consumed includes chemical fertilizers (38.2%)

295 and electricity (27.09%). The results of greenhouse cucumber energy showed that fuel

296 institution with 47% had the highest and water consumption with 1.2% had the lowest share

297 of energy consumption in greenhouses (Taki et al., 2013).

298 Figure 4 shows the results of comparing the energy of greenhouse products between

299 cucumber and tomato. As can be seen, according to the analysis done between the inputs of

300 the tomato product, compared to the cucumber, less energy consumption is observed among

301 the inputs. Phosphate and seed energy use are the most different between cucumber and

302 tomato products. This indicates that the cultivation of tomato is more preferable than

303 cucumber in the study area.

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

17
 Table 7
Amounts of inputs-outputs energy in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production of Tehran province.
Greenhouse crops
Items Cucumber Tomato
Unit per ha Energy use (MJ ha-1) Unit per ha Energy use (MJ ha-1)
A. Inputs (unit)
1. Human labor (h) 16955.82 33233.41 17532.30 34363.31
2. Agricultural machinery (kg) 9.48 1352.80 9.12 1301.42
3. Diesel fuel (L) 4490.20 252843.16 4540.78 255691.32
4. Chemical fertilizers (kg)
(a) Nitrogen 701.70 46410.44 677.69 44822.42
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 797.69 9923.26 675.23 8399.86
(c) Potassium (K) 811.91 9052.80 767.54 8558.07
5. Biocides (kg) 33.48 4017.60 38.81 4657.20
7. Electricity (kwh) 4047.68 48572.16 4593.19 55118.28
8. Cucumber seed 0.13 0.10 - -
9. Tomato seed - - 0.11 0.08
Total energy use (MJ) - 405405.75 - 412911.99

B. Output (kg)
1. Cucumber 131228.67 104982.94 - -
2. Tomato - - 285351.70 228281.37
312

313

18
 Fig. 3. Shares of energy sources in cucumber and tomato production.

314

315

Fig. 4. Comparison between energy inputs in cucumber and tomato production.

316

317

318

19
319 3.2. Energy indicators analysis

320 The energy indicators in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production were examined in

321 Table 8. The energy use efficiency of tomato (0.55) is higher than cucumber (0.26). Hatirli et

322 al. (2006b) reported that the energy ratio in tomato production was 1.21. Therefore, it can be

323 concluded that the energy consumption performance in Tehran province, Iran is lower than

324 the energy consumption performance in the production of this product in Turkish

325 greenhouses. The energy ratio index in greenhouse production of vegetables such as

326 cucumber, tomato, pepper and eggplant was calculated to be 0.31, 0.32, 0.23 and 0.19,

327 respectively (Canakci and Akinci, 2006). Energy ratio index in Iran for cucumber and

328 strawberry greenhouse production was equal to 0.12 and 0.12, respectively (Khoshnevisan et

329 al., 2013; 2014b). The results of energy productivity in tomato and cucumber were 0.69 kg

330 MJ−1 and 0.32 kg MJ−1, respectively. The specific energy of tomato and cucumber were 1.45

331 and 3.09 MJ kg-1, respectively. The net energy gain of cucumber (-300139.13 MJ ha–1) and

332 tomato (-184308.90 MJ ha–1) was calculated negatively. In terms of energy consumption of

333 inputs, tomato have more performance. Pishgar-Komleh et al. (2013) showed that the total

334 input and output energy of cucumber production were 1284000 MJ ha-1 and 12500 MJ ha-1,

335 respectively.

336 Table 8
Energy indices in greenhouse cucumber and tomato production.
337 Items Greenhouse crops
Cucumber Tomato
Energy use efficiency (ratio) 0.26 0.55
338
Energy productivity (kg MJ−1) 0.32 0.69
339 Specific energy (MJ kg-1) 3.09 1.45
–1
Net energy gain (MJ ha ) -300139.13 -184308.90
340

341

20
342 3.3. LCA analysis

343 The On-greenhouse emissions of inputs into air, water and soil is reported in Table 9. The

344 results showed carbon dioxide has the highest content among 18 air pollutants, also carbon

345 dioxide 18498.53 kg in cucumber has more emissions than tomato. The reason is that diesel

346 fuel is the source of environmental pollutants. NH3 emissions for cucumber (85.20 kg) and

347 tomato (82.29 kg) there is no significant difference between cucumber and tomato

348 production. The amount of emissions caused by chemical fertilizers and heavy metals due to

349 it in cucumber is more than tomato production. Although the use of pesticides and chemical

350 fertilizers in the production of greenhouse crops increases the yield and improves the quality

351 of crops, but it has destructive effects. Pollution of the environment, accumulation of

352 pollutants such as nitrate in the organs of agricultural products and endangering the health of

353 humans and animals are examples of the harmful effects of excessive use of chemical

354 fertilizers (Xue et al., 2015). The results of analysis of field tomato emissions showed that

355 due to seasonal changes, the amount of pollution varies from 16183 to 22426 kg of equivalent

356 Co2 ha-1. In another study irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer also had the highest levels of

357 pollution among inputs (Jones et al., 2012). Cucumber research from also shows that diesel,

358 with more than 60%, has a large share in greenhouse gas emissions (82724) kg CO2eq

359 (Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2013). In this research, carbon dioxide from human labor activities

360 for cucumber (11869.07 kg) is less than tomato (12272.61 kg).

361

362

363

364

365

366

21
 Table 9
On-greenhouse emissions of cucumber and tomato production in Tehran province of Iran
based on 1 hectare.
Greenhouse crops
Item (unit)
Cucumber Tomato
1. Emissions by diesel fuel to air (kg)
(a). CO2 18836.81 338.28
(b). SO2 6.09 0.10
(c). CH4 0.77 0.01
(d). Benzene 0.04 0.00079
(e). Cd 6.04E-05 1.08E-06
(f). Cr 0.0003 5.40E-06
(g).Cu 0.01 0.0001
(h). N2O 0.72 0.01
(i). Ni 0.0004 7.58E-06
(j). Zn 0.006 0.0001
(k). Benzo (a) pyrene 0.0001 3.25E-06
(l). NH3 0.12 0.002
(m). Se 6.04E-05 1.08E-06
(n). PAH 0.019 0.0003
(o). HC, as NMVOC 17.19 0.30
(p). NOx 268.01 4.81
(q). CO 37.92 0.68
(r). Particulates (b2.5 μm) 27.05 0.48
2. Emissions by fertilizers to air (kg)
(a). NH3 by chemical fertilizers 85.20 82.29
3. Emissions by fertilizers to water (kg)
(a). Nitrate 93.22 90.03
(b). Phosphate 17.41 14.74
5. Emission by N2O of fertilizers to air (kg)
(a). NOx 147.35 142.31
6. Emission by human labor to air (kg)
(a). CO2 11869.07 12272.61
7. Emission by heavy metals of fertilizers to soil (mg)
(a). Cd 76563.52 65327.96
(b). Cu 190429.64 164070.14
(c). Zn 1685577.55 1444711.56
(d). Pb 3919557.42 3770761.94
(e). Ni 179452.50 154014.11
(f). Cr 1056311.53 901512.57
(f). Hg 709.74 617.18
8. Emissions by biocides to air (kg)
(a). Benomyl 0.04 0.32
(b). Captan 0.06 0.45
(c). Thiophanate-methyl 0.01 0.86
(d). Chlorothalonil 0.09 0.42
(e). Thiram 0.15 0.31
(f). Chloropicrin 0.06 0.44
(g). Parathion 0.13 0.52
(h). Carbofuran 0.08 0.36
9. Emissions by biocides to soil (kg)
(a). Benomyl 0.98 0.30
(b). Captan 0.41 0.81
(c). Thiophanate-methyl 0.52 0.47
(d). Chlorothalonil 0.31 0.69
(e). Thiram 0.77 0.71
(f). Chloropicrin 0.42 0.53
(g). Parathion 0.99 0.10
(h). Carbofuran 0.61 0.66
367

22
368 The amount of damage assessment of the ReCiPe 2016 method classifications is shown in

369 Table 10. The human health category for cucumber and tomato 0.012 and 0.004 DALY,

370 respectively. Resources have significant amount for cucumber (25.35 USD2013), also

371 releases are more relevant than the other categories. Other studies in greenhouse production

372 of cucumber and tomato have shown that the freshwater ecotoxicity potential index has the

373 highest level of pollution, similar results have been obtained for the production of greenhouse

374 strawberry (Khoshnevisan et al., 2013; 2014a).

375 The share of inputs to emit damage assessment categories, also emissions comparison

376 between weighted damage assessment of cucumber and tomato production showed in Fig. 6

377 and Fig. 7, respectively. According to results, On-greenhouse emissions have the greatest

378 impact on human health classification with 82% and 78% for cucumber and tomato,

379 respectively. Also in On-greenhouse emissions affect ecosystem classification with 78% and

380 67% for cucumber and tomato, respectively. Diesel fuel, electricity and nitrogen emits led to

381 the release of pollutants related to the resources class, electricity and nitrogen have a greater

382 impact on tomato and cucumber emissions, respectively. As a result, greenhouse cucumber

383 has more emissions than tomato in different classes. Ali et al. (2017) reported that different

384 cucumber farms have emissions 16.90, 18.58 and 19.63 kg CO2 eq. Diesel fuel, fertilizer and

385 machinery had the largest share in cucumber emissions. The results of the LCA report

386 showed that categories the respiratory inorganics, terrestrial acid/nutria, and aquatic

387 acidification had a significant share in the emissions, the human health category for arecanut

388 production also had the highest value (Paramesh et al., 2018).

389

390

391

392

23
 Table 10
Values of the damage assessment per one ton of cucumber and
tomato production in Tehran province of Iran.
Greenhouse crops
Impact categories Unit
Cucumber Tomato
Human health DALY a 0.012 0.004
Ecosystems species.yr b 1.39E-05 4.33E-06
Resources USD2013 25.35 11.80
a
DALY: disability adjusted life years. A damage of 1 is equal to:
loss of 1 life year of 1 individual, or 1 person suffers 4 years from a
disability with a weight of 0.25.
b
species.yr: the unit for ecosystems is the local species loss
integrated over time.
393

394

24
 Fig. 6. Contribution of inputs to emit damage assessment categories of cucumber and tomato
production
395

Fig. 7. Comparison between weighted damage assessment of cucumber and tomato production.

396

25
397 3.4. Cumulative exergy demand analysis

398 Different values are obtained for energy forms in cumulative exergy demand method are

399 showed in Table 11. Non-renewable, fossil form has the highest energy produced for

400 cucumber and tomato 2802.88 MJ ton –1 and 1301.14 MJ ton –1, respectively. Also renewable,

401 biomass and water forms were in the second and third ranks. Non-renewable, primary form

402 had the lowest energy were 18.70 MJ ton–1 and 8.12 MJ ton–1 for cucumber and tomato,

403 respectively. Saber et al. (2020) cumulative exergy demand analysis for conventional, low

404 external input and organic systems of rice paddy production showed that non-renewable,

405 fossil fuel was the basic energy form. The cumulative exergy demand index for saffron was

406 calculated as 1894.23 MJ ha-1 equivalent, this report showed that saffron has much less

407 energy than cucumber and tomato (Khanali et al., 2017). To compare the energy forms of the

408 cucumber and tomato production according to the inputs used in the greenhouse is showed in

409 Fig. 8 and 9. Chemical fertilizers and diesel fuel had the greatest impact on energy forms,

410 also diesel fuel and electricity play an important role in the production of non-renewable,

411 fossil form with 60% and 15%, respectively. Phosphate, nitrogen and potassium have the

412 greatest effect on non-renewable, minerals, metals and primary form, respectively. Electricity

413 about 28% has the largest share in the renewable, potential. Zarei et al. (2019) presented,

414 diesel fuel and natural gas combustion had a significant contribution in cumulative exergy

415 demand method analysis of cucumber and tomato production.

Table 11
The energy forms results of cumulative exergy demand analysis for one ton of cucumber
and tomato production in Tehran province of Iran.
Greenhouse crops
Energy form Unit
Cucumber Tomato
Non-renewable, fossil MJ ton–1 2802.88 1301.14
Renewable, potential MJ ton–1 31.77 14.37
Non-renewable, primary MJ ton–1 18.70 8.12
Renewable, biomass MJ ton–1 246.67 107.09
Renewable, water MJ ton–1 105.87 45.98
Non-renewable, metals MJ ton–1 33.55 14.53
Non-renewable, minerals MJ ton–1 53.81 21.69

26
Fig. 8. Contribution of inputs to consume energy forms of cucumber and

27
 tomato production.

416

Fig. 9. Comparison between energy forms of cucumber and tomato production.

417

418 4. Conclusions

419 The development of greenhouses has increased the need for energy, the main energy

420 consumption in greenhouses is to heat the greenhouse space in the cold months and air

421 conditioning in the warm seasons. However, costs such as supplementary lighting,

422 automation system equipment and agricultural machinery should also be considered. Limited

423 fossil fuels and environmental pollution from their consumption and rising global raw oil

424 prices have necessitated the replacement of other renewable energy sources. The goal of this

425 study assessment of energy use, environmental impacts and cumulative exergy demand in

426 greenhouse cucumber and tomato production. The results of energy consumption of

427 cucumber and tomato is 405405.75 and 412911.99 MJ ha-1, respectively. Diesel fuel has the

428 highest energy consumption in the production of greenhouse cucumber and tomato. LCA

28
429 results showed the On-greenhouse emissions have the greatest impact on human health

430 classification with 82% and 78% for cucumber and tomato, respectively. The human health

431 category has more releases for cucumber (0.012 DALY) than for tomato (0.004 DALY),

432 resource releases are more relevant than the other two categories, resources have significant

433 amount for cucumber (25.35 USD2013). Cumulative exergy demand results showed all forms

434 of renewable and non-renewable energy for cucumber are greater than tomato. Non-

435 renewable, fossil form has the highest energy produced for cucumber (2802.88 MJ ton –1) and

436 tomato (1301.14 MJ ton–1). The energy forms obtained from the cumulative exergy demand

437 method also result from the use of chemical fertilizers. Due to greenhouse cultivation in a

438 closed and controllable environment, the ecosystem category obtained by LCA method had

439 the lowest emissions. In environmental analyzes, diesel fuel also produces significant

440 emissions. Optimal use of energy consumption in terms of plant physiology and technical

441 aspects, design and technical equipment used in the greenhouse are discussed. Some energy

442 sources such as solar, geothermal energy, industrial waste and agricultural products are

443 essential to replace fossil fuels in greenhouse energy. According to the design principles,

444 structure, location and common coverings in greenhouses, the necessary solutions to reduce

445 energy consumption for each area should be provided. The design of greenhouse systems

446 with high production capacity, minimum energy consumption and reduction of chemical

447 fertilizers should be considered, also food safety is ensured in creating sustainable

448 ecosystems. In addition, prediction and optimization of energy consumption and

449 environmental effects can be done for further research to help greenhouse owners.

450 References

451 Alam, M. Shahid, M. R. Alam, and K.K.I., 2005. Energy flow in agriculture: Bangladesh.

452 Am. J. Environ. Sci. 1.3, 213–220.

453 Ali, Q., Khan, M., 2017. Impact of energy efficiency improvement on greenhouse gas in off-

29
454 season tomato farming: Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan. 5, 207–217.

455 Antón, A., Torrellas, M., Núñez, M., Sevigné, E., Amores, M.J., Muñoz, P., Montero, J.I.,

456 2014. Improvement of agricultural life cycle assessment studies through spatial

457 differentiation and new impact categories: case study on greenhouse tomato production.

458 Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9454–9462.

459 Bösch, M.E., Hellweg, S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Frischknecht, R., 2007. Applying cumulative

460 exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.

461 12, 181.

462 Bosona, T., Gebresenbet, G., 2018. Life cycle analysis of organic tomato production and

463 supply in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 635–643.

464 Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Barraclough, P., Kuhlmann, H., 2004. Environmental

465 impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment

466 (LCA) methodology II. The application to N fertilizer use in winter wheat production

467 systems. Eur. J. Agron. 20, 265–279.

468 Canakci, M., Akinci, I., 2006. Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable

469 production. Energy 31, 1243–1256.

470 Cellura, M., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of protected crops:

471 an Italian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 28, 56–62.

472 Cochran, W.G., 1977. The estimation of sample size. Sampl. Tech. 3, 72–90.

473 Coltro, L., Mourad, A., Oliveira, P., Baddini, J., Kletecke, R., 2006. Environmental Profile of

474 Brazilian Green Coffee (6 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006 111 11, 16–21.

475 Dalgaard, T., Halberg, N., Porter, J.R., 2001. A model for fossil energy use in Danish

476 agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

477 87, 51–65.

478 de Backer, E., Aertsens, J., Vergucht, S., Steurbaut, W., 2009. Assessing the ecological

30
479 soundness of organic and conventional agriculture by means of life cycle assessment

480 (LCA): A case study of leek production. Br. Food J. 111, 1028–1061.

481 Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H.M., Akbolat, D., Ekinci, C., 2006. Energy and economic

482 analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: A case study from Isparta province.

483 Energy Convers. Manag. 47, 1761–1769.

484 Dewulf, J., Bösch, M.E., Meester, B. De, der Vorst, G. Van, Langenhove, H. Van, Hellweg,

485 S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2007. Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural

486 Environment (CEENE): a comprehensive Life Cycle Impact Assessment method for

487 resource accounting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 8477–8483.

488 Dias, G. M., Ayer, N. W., Khosla, S., Van Acker, R., Young, S. B., Whitney, S., Hendricks,

489 P., 2017. Life cycle perspectives on the sustainability of Ontario greenhouse tomato

490 production: Benchmarking and improvement opportunities. Journal of Cleaner

491 Production, 140, 831-839.

492 Edenhofer, O. 2015. Climate change: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University

493 Press.

494 Esmaeilzadeh, S., Asgharipour, M. R., Khoshnevisan, B., 2020. Water footprint and life cycle

495 assessment of edible onion production-A case study in Iran. Scientia Horticulturae, 261,

496 108925.

497 Esengun, K., Erdal, G., Gündüz, O., Erdal, H., 2007. An economic analysis and energy use in

498 stake-tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey. Renew. Energy 32, 1873–1881.

499 Gallego, A., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Environmental assessment of

500 dehydrated alfalfa production in Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 1005–1012.

501 Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H., Akram, A., Keyhani, A., Mohammadi, A., 2012. Optimization of

502 energy required for alfalfa production using data envelopment analysis approach.

503 Energy Sustain. Dev. 16, 242–248.

31
504 Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H., Kaab, A., Rafiee, S., 2020. Application of life cycle analysis to

505 assess environmental sustainability of wheat cultivation in the west of Iran. Energy

506 193.116768

507 Ghorbani, R., Mondani, F., Amirmoradi, S., Feizi, H., Khorramdel, S., Teimouri, M., Sanjani,

508 S., Anvarkhah, S., Aghel, H., 2011. A case study of energy use and economical analysis

509 of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems. Appl. Energy 88, 283–288.

510 Guinée, J.B., 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards.

511 Int. J. life cycle Assess. 7, 311.

512 Hatirli, S.A., Ozkan, B., Fert, C., 2006a. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in

513 greenhouse tomato production. Renew. Energy 31, 427–438.

514 Hatirli, S.A., Ozkan, B., Fert, C., 2006b. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in

515 greenhouse tomato production. Renew. Energy 31, 427–438.

516 Heydari, B., Jafari, A., Rafiee, S., Ahmad, A. H., Sharifi, M., Yousefi, M., & Mazaheri, A.,

517 2015. Energy and Economic Analysis of Spearmint Essential Oil Production: a Case

518 Study-Golkaran Agro-Industrial Co. J. Agric. Eng. Biote 3(1), 11.

519 Hischier, R., Nowack, B., Gottschalk, F., Hincapie, I., Steinfeldt, M., Som, C., 2015. Life

520 cycle assessment of façade coating systems containing manufactured nanomaterials. J.

521 Nanoparticle Res. 17, 68.

522 IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. 2. Inst. Glob.

523 Environ. Strateg. Hayama, Japan.

524 ISO, 2006. 14040 International standard. Environmental Management–Life Cycle

525 Assessment–Principles and Framework, International Organisation for Standardization,

526 Geneva, Switzerland.

527 Jones, C.D., Fraisse, C.W., Ozores-Hampton, M., 2012. Quantification of greenhouse gas

528 emissions from open field-grown Florida tomato production. Agric. Syst. 113, 64–72.

32
529 Kaab, A., Sharifi, M., Mobli, H., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Chau, K., 2019. Combined life cycle

530 assessment and artificial intelligence for prediction of output energy and environmental

531 impacts of sugarcane production. Sci. Total Environ. 664, 1005–1019.

532 Khanali, M., Shahvarooghi Farahani, S., Shojaei, H., Elhami, B., 2017. Life cycle

533 environmental impacts of saffron production in Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24,

534 4812–4821.

535 Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Mousazadeh, H., 2013. Environmental impact assessment of

536 open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Eur. J. Agron. 50, 29–37.

537 Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Mousazadeh, H., Clark, S., 2014a. Environmental

538 impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using life cycle

539 assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 183–192.

540 Khoshnevisan, B., Shariati, H.M., Rafiee, S., Mousazadeh, H., 2014b. Comparison of energy

541 consumption and GHG emissions of open field and greenhouse strawberry production.

542 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 316–324.

543 Longo, S., Mistretta, M., Guarino, F., Cellura, M., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of organic

544 and conventional apple supply chains in the North of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 654–663.

545 Martin-Gorriz, B., Soto-García, M., Martínez-Alvarez, V., 2014. Energy and greenhouse-gas

546 emissions in irrigated agriculture of SE (southeast) Spain. Effects of alternative water

547 supply scenarios. Energy 77, 478–488.

548 Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran, 2020. Annual Agricultural Statistics. www.maj.ir (in

549 Persian).

550 Mohammadi, A., Omid, M., 2010. Economical analysis and relation between energy inputs

551 and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Appl. Energy 87, 191–196.

552 Mohammadi-Barsari, A., Firouzi, S., Aminpanah, H., 2016. Energy-use pattern and carbon

553 footprint of rain-fed watermelon production in Iran. Inf. Process. Agric. 3, 69–75.

33
554 Mostashari-Rad, F., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Soheilifard, F., Hosseini-Fashami, F., Chau, K. W.

555 2019. Energy optimization and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation for agricultural and

556 horticultural systems in Northern Iran. Energy, 186, 115845.

557 Mouron, P., Nemecek, T., Scholz, R.W., Weber, O., 2006. Management influence on

558 environmental impacts in an apple production system on Swiss fruit farms: Combining

559 life cycle assessment with statistical risk assessment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 311–

560 322.

561 Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Mohammadi, A., 2011. Improving energy use

562 efficiency of canola production using data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach.

563 Energy 36, 2765–2772.

564 Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Rafiee, S., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Shamshirband, S., 2016.

565 Modeling energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for kiwifruit production

566 using artificial neural networks. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 924–931.

567 Naderi, S., Raini, M. G. N., Taki, M., 2020. Measuring the energy and environmental indices

568 for apple (production and storage) by life cycle assessment (case study: Semirom county,

569 Isfahan, Iran). Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 6, 100034.

570 Nemecek, T., Kägi, T., Blaser, S., 2007. Life cycle inventories of agricultural production

571 systems. Final Rep. ecoinvent v2. 0 No 15.

572 Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., Karadeniz, F., 2004. Energy requirement and economic analysis of

573 citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers. Manag. 45, 1821–1830.

574 Ozkan, B., Ceylan, R.F., Kizilay, H., 2011. Energy inputs and crop yield relationships in

575 greenhouse winter crop tomato production. Renew. Energy 36, 3217–3221.

576 Ozkan, B., Fert, C., Karadeniz, C.F., 2007. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and

577 open-field grape production. Energy 32, 1500–1504.

578 Paramesh, V., Arunachalam, V., Nikkhah, A., Das, B., Ghnimi, S., 2018. Optimization of

34
579 energy consumption and environmental impacts of arecanut production through coupled

580 data envelopment analysis and life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 203, 674–684.

581 Pirlo, G., Carè, S., Fantin, V., Falconi, F., Buttol, P., Terzano, G.M., Masoni, P., Pacelli, C.,

582 2014. Factors affecting life cycle assessment of milk produced on 6 Mediterranean

583 buffalo farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 6583–6593.

584 Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Keyhani, A., Rafiee, S.H., Sefeedpary, P., 2011. Energy use and

585 economic analysis of corn silage production under three cultivated area levels in Tehran

586 province of Iran. Energy 36, 3335–3341.

587 Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Omid, M., Heidari, M.D., 2013. On the study of energy use and GHG

588 (greenhouse gas) emissions in greenhouse cucumber production in Yazd province.

589 Energy 59, 63–71.

590 Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Andrews, P.K., Hinman, H.R., 2001. Sustainability of three

591 apple production systems. Nat. 2001 4106831 410, 926–930.

592 Rahman, M. M., Miah, M. S., Rahman, M. A., Riad, M. I., Sultana, N., Yasmin, M., Kadir, M.

593 M., 2022. Designing an energy use analysis and life cycle assessment of the

594 environmental sustainability of conservation agriculture wheat farming in bangladesh. In

595 Environmental Footprints of Crops. 111-137.

596 Romero-Gámez, M., Audsley, E., Suárez-Rey, E.M., 2014. Life cycle assessment of

597 cultivating lettuce and escarole in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 193–203.

598 Ruviaro, C.F., Gianezini, M., Brandão, F.S., Winck, C.A., Dewes, H., 2012. Life cycle

599 assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends. J. Clean. Prod. 28, 9–24.

600 Saber, Z., Esmaeili, M., Pirdashti, H., Motevali, A., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., 2020.

601 Exergoenvironmental-Life cycle cost analysis for conventional, low external input and

602 organic systems of rice paddy production. J. Clean. Prod. 263, 121529.

603 Sanjuán, N., Úbeda, L., Clemente, G., Mulet, A., Girona, F., 2005. LCA of integrated orange

35
604 production in the Comunidad Valenciana (Spain). Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 4,

605 163–177.

606 Sartori, L., Basso, B., Bertocco, M., Oliviero, G., 2005. Energy Use and Economic

607 Evaluation of a Three Year Crop Rotation for Conservation and Organic Farming in NE

608 Italy. Biosyst. Eng. 91, 245–256.

609 Singh, H., Mishra, D., Nahar, N.M., 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a

610 typical village in arid zone, India––part I. Energy Convers. Manag. 43, 2275–2286.

611 Taherzadeh-Shalmaei, N., Sharifi, M., Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H., Kaab, A. 2021. Evaluating the

612 energy use, economic and environmental sustainability for smoked fish production from

613 life cycle assessment point of view (case study: Guilan Province, Iran). Environmental

614 Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 53833-53846.

615 Taki, M., Abdi, R., Akbarpour, M., Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H., 2013. Energy inputs-Yield

616 relationship and sensitivity analysis for tomato greenhouse production in Iran. Agric.

617 Eng. Int. CIGR J. 15, 59–67.

618 Unakitan, G., Hurma, H., Yilmaz, F., 2010. An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola

619 production in Turkey. Energy 35, 3623–3627.

620 Vinyes, E., Asin, L., Alegre, S., Muñoz, P., Boschmonart, J., Gasol, C.M., 2017. Life Cycle

621 Assessment of apple and peach production, distribution and consumption in

622 Mediterranean fruit sector. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 313–320.

623 Xue, X., Hawkins, T.R., Ingwersen, W.W., Smith, R.L., 2015. Demonstrating an approach

624 for including pesticide use in life-cycle assessment: Estimating human and ecosystem

625 toxicity of pesticide use in Midwest corn farming. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015 208 20,

626 1117–1126.

627 Yuan, S., Peng, S., Wang, D., Man, J., 2018. Evaluation of the energy budget and energy use

628 efficiency in wheat production under various crop management practices in China.

36
629 Energy.

630 Zarei, M.J., Kazemi, N., Marzban, A., 2019. Life cycle environmental impacts of cucumber

631 and tomato production in open-field and greenhouse. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 18, 249–

632 255.

633

37