Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Life cycle assessment of the production of beet sugar and its by-products
Maria Nelly Garcia Gonzalez *, Lovisa Björnsson
Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Department of Technology and Society, Lund University, PO Box 118, SE, 221 00, Lund, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Bin Chen This work presents estimates of the emissions resulting from the production of white sugar and its by-products
(molasses, pressed beet pulp and dried beet pulp) from sugar beet cultivation to the final product at the factory
Keywords: gate. The study covers the impact of global warming potential, eutrophication potential (freshwater and marine)
Molasses and particulate matter. The analysis was based on detailed primary data provided by Nordic Sugar A/S, from the
Sugar beet pulp
Örtofta Sugar Factory (southern Sweden). The results of this analysis are presented for the functional unit of 1
Economic allocation
tonne (t) white sugar without allocation. Economic and energy allocations were also applied and compared for
Energy allocation
Softwood chips white sugar and its by-products. The allocation of emissions to the product and by-products reduced the emis­
sions for white sugar by 9% in the economic allocation, and by 21% in the energy allocation. The low economic
value of the by-products gave rather low emissions for all by-products when applying economic allocation. These
results were compared with those in the literature for white sugar in terms of global warming potential (GWP),
and the results showed the lowest impact for both allocations. Replacing fossil natural gas as the main process
energy source with softwood chips reduced the GWP for white sugar (without allocation to by-products) from
623 to 342 kg CO2eq/t, illustrating the considerable potential for greenhouse gas emission reduction by replacing
fossil fuels in the production process.

1. Introduction
Sugar beet is the world’s second most cultivated crop, after sugar
cane, for the production of white sugar for human consumption. The
European Union (EU) is a large producer of beet sugar, producing about
50% of the total amount worldwide (European Commission, 2021). The
amount of sugar beet produced in 2019 was about 278 million metric
tonnes in the world (Shahbandeh, 2021), and about 112 million tonnes
in the EU (Trenda, 2021). Sugar beet contains high concentrations of
sucrose (between 16% and 20% on fresh weight basis), which is the
compound commonly referred to as white sugar (Duraisamy et al.,
2017). The consumption of sugar in the EU has increased over recent
decades due to the growing population. However, sugar producers and
sugar beet growers are now facing challenges such as lower selling prices
and a decrease in the traditional market (Brouns, 2015). This is due to
the fact that regulations on the minimum price of sugar, established by
the Common Market, were abolished in 2017 (Maitah et al., 2016), and
to health-education campaigns and activities aimed at reducing the
amount of sugar in the diet (Fred Brouns, 2015).
In light of concerns about climate change, and the ongoing transition
from fossil to renewable fuels, a new market is emerging for sugar, as
both researchers and producers attempt to expand the use of sucrose
beyond food products. Sucrose has proven to be a useful raw material for
the production of valuable chemical compounds such as 2,5-furandicar­
boxylic acid (Van Putten et al., 2013), polylactic acid (Bos et al., 2012)
and bio-based polyethylene (Bos et al., 2012), among others. Further­
more, sugar beet is among the agricultural crops that provide the highest
carbohydrate yields per hectare, together with sugar cane and sweet
sorghum (Duraisamy et al., 2017). Sugar from sugar beet has also been
used as a raw material for the production of biofuels, especially ethanol
(Salazar-Ordóñez et al., 2013), which can be used to replace fossil fuels
as transportation fuel (Börjesson and Tufvesson, 2011). However, the
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 2021, called for in
the revised EU Renewable Energy Directive, will make sugar beet
ethanol less attractive from a sustainability perspective. In addition, the
increasing demand for so-called advanced or second-generation biofuels
will promote a shift from the use of food crops to the use of waste and
by-products as biofuel feedstock (EU, 2018). In a fossil-free society,
biomass resources must be utilised efficiently, which means using waste
and residues to produce bio-based products, while ensuring the supply
of food (European Commission, 2018; Mohr and Raman, 2013).
The beet sugar industry generates significant amounts of by-products

* Corresponding author
E-mail address: nelly.garcia_gonzalez@miljo.lth.se (M.N. Garcia Gonzalez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131211
Received 30 September 2021; Received in revised form 22 January 2022; Accepted 3 March 2022
Available online 8 March 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson
that could be valorised in many ways. Traditionally, by-products such as
sugar beet pulp have been used as ingredients in animal feed, while
molasses has mainly been used for the production of alcohol, in animal
feed, or as a medium for yeast biomass production (Duraisamy et al.,
2017). Although these by-products are still used for these purposes, they
are also now very attractive feedstocks for new applications, for
example, in the production of novel biofuels and biochemicals (Concha
Olmos and Zúñiga Hansen, 2012). Examples of such applications include
the use of sugar beet pulp to produce biofuels via thermochemical
techniques (Nicodème et al., 2018) or via fermentation (Gumienna et al.,
2014), and the production of value-added chemicals and pharmaceutical
intermediates (Cárdenas-Fernández et al., 2017). Sugar beet molasses
can be used for lactic fermentation (Tomaszewska et al., 2018), or
ethanol production (Arshad et al., 2017), among other things.
Thorough investigations of the environmental impacts of these
feedstocks are important before sugar, or the by-products from its pro­
duction, can be used in future sustainable biobased production chains.
Several studies have been carried out in which estimates of the GHG
emissions from both beet- (de Figueiredo et al., 2010; García et al.,
2016) and cane-based sugar production (Klenk et al., 2012; Yousefi
et al., 2014) have been reported. The total GHG emissions of the final
product have also been evaluated, for example, sugar-beet-based
ethanol production (Alexiades et al., 2018; Pacheco and Silva, 2019),
while other environmental impact categories have been included in one
study (Buchspies and Kaltschmitt, 2016).
However, there is a lack of detail in some of these sustainability
studies as the results have not always been disaggregated into the
different stages of the process (Alexiades et al., 2018; Laude et al., 2011),
or details regarding the calculations and system boundaries are not
publicly available. Furthermore, there is a lack of complete life cycle
assessments (LCAs) of the by-products of sugar. To date, only one report
has been published, on so-called raw thick juice (Vargas-Ramirez et al.,
2017), which is a process intermediate, not a by-product, and only the
GHG emissions were reported. There is also a lack of information in the
literature on estimates of other critical environmental impact categories,
such as freshwater and marine eutrophication, and the emissions of
particulate matter.
Bearing in mind the issues and challenges discussed above, the aim of
this study was to estimate the emissions from both white sugar pro­
duction and its by-products, molasses and beet pulp, from the cradle
(farm) to the factory gate. These emissions contribute to: (i) global
warming, one of the main environmental challenges of this century, (ii)
eutrophication, an environmental challenge where EU targets on re­
ductions are unlikely to be met (European Environment Agency, 2019),
and (iii) particulate matter, which is the air pollutant that has the
highest impact on premature deaths in the EU (European Environment
Agency, 2021). Primary data supplied by Nordic Sugar, one of Europe’s
leading sugar producers, were used in the LCA. The data used were
obtained from the Örtofta Sugar Factory in southern Sweden, which is
one of the largest sugar-producing facilities in Europe. It receives and
processes around 2 million tonnes of sugar beet during each campaign
(Nordic Sugar, 2022).
The results of this analysis are presented for the functional unit of 1
tonne (t) white sugar without allocation. Economic and energy alloca­
tion strategies were also applied, and these results are given per unit
weight (dry matter, DM), and are compared with data found in the
literature. Different methods for the allocation of emissions between the
main product and the by-products are evaluated and discussed. The
impact of changing the primary energy source at the processing factory
from fossil (natural gas) to renewable (softwood chips) is also evaluated.
2. Methodology
The LCA analysis was performed according to the methodology in
the ISO 14040–14044 series, presented by the International Organiza­
tion of Standardization (ISO 14040–14044, 2006).
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211
2.1. System boundary
White sugar production from sugar beet, and its main by-products
(molasses and beet pulp), were assessed from the cradle to the factory
gate, as shown in Fig. 1. This includes the cultivation of the feedstock, its
transport to the factory, and processing of the different products. Other
activities after leaving the factory such as transportation to retailers
were not included in the study.
The cultivation of sugar beet involves several operations, i.e.
ploughing, harrowing, sowing, fertilisation and harvesting, as shown in
the green boxes in Fig. 1. All the inputs required for cultivation, such as
beet seed, fertilisers, pesticides and the fuel used by machinery, were
included in the system. Emissions resulting from the production of fer­
tilisers and pesticides, and fuel consumed by agricultural machinery
were also included. (Emissions from the manufacture of the machinery
and its maintenance were not considered.) The emissions included were:
ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH₄⁺), nitrogen (N), nitrous oxide (N2O),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrates (NO3− ),
methane (CH4), phosphorus (P), phosphates (PO₄3⁻), carbon dioxide of
fossil origin (CO2) and particles. No artificial irrigation is needed during
beet cultivation in southern Sweden. All the inputs required in sugar
production at the factory were also included in the system (grey boxes in
Fig. 1): natural gas, diesel, coke, heat, electricity and steam, as well as
the production and use of chemicals added as processing aids. Emissions
resulting from fuels: CO2, CH4, N2O and NOx, were also considered. The
water used in the washing process is purified and reused repeatedly, and
only a small quantity of fresh water is required in the process. As the
contribution from water consumption was insignificant, this was not
included in the system. The handling of soil from the sugar beet washing
area was also excluded.
2.2. Impact assessment method
This study follows the ReCiPe 2016 method (ReCiPe, 2016), which
mainly covers the impact categories of global warming potential (GWP),
freshwater eutrophication potential (FEP) and marine eutrophication
potential (MEP). The impact of particulate matter emissions (PM) was
also included. The method is based on GWP100, which is a metric used
to describe the time-integrated radiative characteristics of well-mixed
GHGs over a 100-year time frame.
2.3. Data used in the study
The study is based on data from 2015 to 2018, using primary and
detailed data provided by Nordic Sugar, for the Örtofta Sugar Factory.
Emissions for the fuels and electricity used are based on the most
recently available national/regional data. The annual sugar beet culti­
vation area was, on average, 27,000 ha (ha) during this period, and the
average sugar beet yield 61 t/ha. The yield used for white sugar (WS) at
the factory was 161 kg WS/t sugar beet. The primary data and the in­
ventory analysis for the two main stages (sugar beet cultivation and the
production of white sugar and its by-products) are presented below. The
data are divided according to emissions and impact category, and the
outcomes of the emission inventory are given per hectare per year for
each impact category. The emissions are aggregated into the corre­
sponding impact categories. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are the most
important precursor emissions in terms of GWP. In the case of FEP, the
most important emissions are PO4− 3 and P; and in MEP, NO2, NH3, NO3,
NOx, N and NH4+. Particles up to 10 μm in size were included in PM.
Finally, the characterisation factors for each emission were taken from
the ReCiPe 2017 method.
2.3.1. Cultivation
The emissions from sugar beet cultivation are divided into biogenic
soil emissions, agrochemicals used (including the production of mineral
fertilisers and herbicides, and also including input of seeds), and the
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Fig. 1. Illustration of the system studied, from cultivation to final product at the factory gate.

diesel used in the agricultural field operations. The biogenic soil emis­
Table 1
sions represent the emissions from fertilisers and crop residues, and were
Emissions from sugar beet cultivation contributing to global warming potential.
calculated using the IPCC method (IPCC, 2006) with national emission
factors (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2018a, 2018b). Emission Amount Units Result Units

Emissions include CO2 emissions from lime application, ammonia Biogenic soil emissions
emissions, and direct and indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen fertil­ CO2 580.80 kg CO2/ 580.80 kg CO2
ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
isation. The cultivation inputs will vary between farms, and the primary
N2O 3.21 kg N2O/ 956.05 kg CO2
data used in the study were general and average data per ha for the ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
approximately 1,500 farms delivering sugar beets to the factory. The Total 1536.85 kg CO2
primary data on nitrogen and lime addition can be found in Table S1 in eq/ha⋅y
the Supplementary Information (SI). Background information on emis­ Agrochemicals
Fertilisers CO2 526.50 kg CO2/ 526.50 kg CO2
sion factors is summarised in Table S2. Emissions from the production of
(including ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
agrochemicals were obtained from the Ecoinvent database, version 3.5. limestone) CH4 4.95⋅10− 3
kg CH4/ 0.17 kg CO2
The primary data on field operations in sugar beet cultivation are given ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
in Table S3, and have been recalculated for a diesel demand of 5,399 N2O 0.52 kg N2O/ 156.05 kg CO2
ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
MJ/ha⋅y. The emissions for diesel use in agricultural machinery are
Pesticides CO2 1.47 kg CO2/ 1.47 kg CO2
given in Table S4. Primary data on input material/agrochemicals are ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
given in Table S1. Tables 1–4 below give the results of inventory analysis Seeds 11.40 kg CO2
for each impact category for sugar beet cultivation, according to the eq/ha⋅y
three categories defined above. The total amount of particulates, Total 695.60 kg CO2
eq/ha⋅y
denoted PMtot, includes all sizes: less than 2.5 μm (<2.5 μm), 2.5 μm–10
Diesel
μm (2.5 μm− 10 μm), and greater than 10 μm (>10 μm). CO2 424.42 kg CO2/ 424.42 kg CO2
ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
2.3.2. Sugar production CH4 0.18 kg CH4/ 6.18 kg CO2
ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
The emissions from sugar production are divided into those resulting
N2O 0.02 kg N2O/ 7.57 kg CO2
from diesel used for loading and transport, process energy at the factory, ha⋅y eq/ha⋅y
and chemicals added as processing aids. The primary data on beet Total 438.18 kg CO2
loading and transport are given in Table S5. The total average diesel eq/ha⋅y
consumption for loading and transport corresponds to 250 and 2,539

3
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Table 2 Table 3
Emissions from sugar beet cultivation contributing to freshwater eutrophication Emissions from sugar beet cultivation contributing to marine eutrophication
potential. potential.
Emission Amount Units Result Units Emission Amount Units Result Units

Biogenic soil emissions Biogenic soil emissions

3
PO4− 1.10 kg 0.36 kg P NO2 5.40 kg NO2/ 0.50 kg N
PO4− 3/ eq/ ha⋅y eq/
ha⋅y ha⋅y ha⋅y
Agrochemicals NH3 2.80 kg NH3/ 0.70 kg N
3 3
Fertilisers PO4− 2.13⋅10− kg 7.03⋅10¡4 kg P ha⋅y eq/
(including PO4− 3/ eq/ ha⋅y
limestone) ha⋅y ha⋅y NO3 155.00 kg NO3/ 10.40 kg N
Pesticides P 0.01 kg P/ha⋅y 0.01 kg P ha⋅y eq/
eq/ ha⋅y
ha⋅y Total 11.57 kg N
Seeds 1.61⋅10¡3 kg P eq/
eq/ ha⋅y
ha⋅y Agrochemicals
Total 0.01 kg P Fertilisers NH3 0.23 kg NH3/ 0.06 kg N
eq/ (including ha⋅y eq/
ha⋅y limestone) ha⋅y
Diesel NOx 0.56 kg NOx/ 0.05 kg N
3 6
PO4− 1.65⋅10− kg 5.43⋅10¡7 kg P ha⋅y eq/
PO4− 3/ eq/ ha⋅y
ha⋅y ha⋅y N 0.02 kg N/ha⋅y 0.01 kg N
eq/
ha⋅y
NH4+ 0.12 kg NH4+/ 0.03 kg N
ha⋅y eq/
MJ/ha⋅y, respectively. Life cycle emissions for diesel use in agricultural ha⋅y
machinery and road transport are given in Table S4. As in the case of the Pesticides NH3 1.30⋅10− 3
kg NH3/ 3.18⋅10¡4 kg N
process energy, these represent the total emissions from fuels (coke, ha⋅y eq/
diesel, natural gas, biogas and electricity) at the sugar factory, including ha⋅y
NH4+ 0.07 kg NH4+/ 0.01 kg N
production, distribution and combustion. The details are given in
ha⋅y eq/
Table S6 in the SI. Emissions resulting from the production of chemical ha⋅y
products were obtained from the Ecoinvent database, v. 3.5. Tables 5–8 Seeds 0.05 kg N
below give the results of the inventory analysis for each impact category eq/
in sugar production, divided into sugar beet (SB) transport to the fac­ ha⋅y
Total 0.21 kg N
tory, process energy, and chemical production. eq/
ha⋅y
3. Process description Diesel
NH3 0.14 Kg NH3/ 0.03 kg N
ha⋅y eq/
The temperate, humid climate and fertile soils in southern Sweden
ha⋅y
are suitable for sugar beet cultivation, and the beets grown here contain NH4+ 1.31⋅10− 4
Kg NH4+/ 3.01⋅10¡5 kg N
a high amount of sugar, ~17.5%. The beet seeds are sown between ha⋅y eq/
March and April and the beets are harvested in mid-September (green ha⋅y
4
boxes in Fig. 1). Sugar beets are delivered to the factory until February. NO3 1.40⋅10− Kg NO3/ 9.35⋅10¡6 kg N
ha⋅y eq/
After harvesting, the sugar beets are transported to the sugar factory ha⋅y
(grey boxes in Fig. 1), where they are weighed and samples taken to Total 0.03 kg N
measure the sugar content (reception area). The beets are then thor­ eq/
oughly washed to remove any adhering soil. A conveyor belt then carries ha⋅y
the clean beets to the slicing machine where they are cut into thin strips.
The strips are transported to a diffusion device, where the sugar is
extracted in hot water. The liquid obtained in this process is called raw Table 4
juice, which is purified by adding slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) and carbon Emissions from sugar beet cultivation contributing to particulate matter.
dioxide (CO2) to precipitate non-sugar substances. Once these undesir­ Emission Result Units
able substances have been filtered off, a pale yellow juice (thin juice)
Agrochemicals
remains, with a sugar content of around ~14%. The rest is mainly water. Fertilisers (including Particulates <2.5 μm 0.35 kg PM < 2.5/ha⋅y
The filtered-off lime is pressed in carbonation lime presses and sold as a limestone)a Particulates >10 μm 0.16 kg PM > 10/ha⋅y
soil conditioner. Most of the remaining water (sugar beet contains Particulates 2.5 0.08 kg PM 2.5 μm –10
~75% water) is removed by evaporation and recycled in the factory. μm− 10 μm μm/ha⋅y
Total 0.60 kg PMtot/ha⋅y
This results in thick juice, containing approximately 70% sugar. The Diesel
remaining water is almost entirely removed by boiling at low pressure Total particulates (all 0.10 kg PMtot/ha⋅y
and high temperature. A small amount of icing sugar is added to start the sizes)b
crystallisation process since the thick juice is now sufficiently concen­ Biogenic soil emissions did not affect the total particle emissions.
trated to form crystals. This produces a mixture of sugar crystals and a
Pesticides and seeds did not affect the total particle emissions from the
syrup called massecuite, which has a high sugar content. Sugar is agrochemicals.
extracted from the massecuite by a boiling process, and it is centrifuged b
All sizes included, <2.5 μm, 2.5 μm− 10 μm, and >10 μm.
several times. The white sugar is carefully washed out, scraped from the
centrifuge, dried and collected. This is the final white sugar product (No.

4
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Table 5 manufacturing, which is high in hemicelluloses and cellulose, and low in

Emissions from sugar production contributing to global warming potential. lignin (Curtin and Lane, 1983). Nordic Sugar sells this by-product as
Emission Amount Units Result Units cattle feed.
a
SB transport to the factory
CO2 178.42 kg CO2/ha⋅y 178.42 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y 3.1.2. Molasses
CH4 0.09 kg CH4/ha⋅y 3.16 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y Molasses (No. 2 in Fig. 1), is a by-product from which sugar cannot
N2O 0.01 kg N2O/ha⋅y 4.20 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y be obtained by crystallisation (Řezbová et al., 2013). The molasses at the
Total 185.80 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y Örtofta factory has a DM of 81%, and the yield is 19 kg DM molasses per
Process energy
CO2 2.82⋅10− 3
kg CO2/ha⋅y 2.82⋅10¡3 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y
t wet weight sugar beet. Nordic Sugar sells sugar beet molasses as cattle
CH4 12.60 kg CH4/ha⋅y 427.43 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y feed providing a source of carbohydrates. Moreover, it increases appe­
N2O 0.01 kg N2O/ha⋅y 3.10 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y tite, and is ideally suited as a supplement in feed and concentrates.
Total 3.25⋅10¡3 kg CO2eq/ha⋅y

Chemical production did not affect the total GHG emissions. 3.2. Energy
a
Including loading beets, and transport by tractor and truck.
Fossil natural gas and biogas are used to produce electricity, steam
and heat in the boiler house of the Örtofta Sugar Factory. Biogas is
Table 6 produced internally in the waste-water treatment factory. The electricity
Emissions from sugar production contributing to freshwater eutrophication produced internally is normally sufficient to supply the whole sugar
potential.
factory. However, during the course of this study, a minor amount of
Emission Amount Units Result Units electricity was purchased from the grid, and this was included in the
Chemical production system. Excess steam is sold for the drying of animal feed, and excess
P 1.10⋅10− 3
kg P/ha⋅y 1.10⋅10¡3 kg P eq/ha⋅y heat is delivered to the local district heating grid (see Fig. 1). Limestone
SB transport to the factory and process energy did not affect the total freshwater is burnt in the lime kiln using coke as a solid fuel to produce Ca(OH)2
eutrophication. and CO2, which are used in the juice purification step.

4. Allocation approach
Table 7
Emissions from sugar production contributing to marine eutrophication Various allocation strategies were applied to investigate the distri­
potential. bution of environmental impacts between the main product and the by-
Emission Amount Units Result Units products. The results are given per unit weight (DM) of the respective
SB transport to the factorya
product. Seven output flows are obtained during sugar production:
NH3 0.02 kg NH3/ha⋅y 4.22⋅10¡3 kg N eq/ha⋅y white sugar, molasses, beet pulp (a pressed fraction and a dried frac­
Process energy tion), carbonation lime, and energy as steam and heat (see Fig. 1, orange
NO2 3.00 kg NO2/ha⋅y 0.27 kg N eq/ha⋅y boxes). These were modelled by means of allocation based on economic
NH3 0.05 kg NH3/ha⋅y 0.01 kg N eq/ha⋅y
and energy value, according to the procedures defined in ISO 14044
Total 0.28 kg N eq/ha⋅y
Chemical production (2006). These allocation methods were compared for a number of rea­
NO2 0.02 kg NO2/ha⋅y 1.60⋅10¡3 kg N eq/ha⋅y sons. Some sugar factories also produce bioethanol for use as a biofuel
NH3 0.04 kg NH3/ha⋅y 0.01 kg N eq/ha⋅y (Jaggard and Townsend, 2014). In a possible future use of by-products
3
N 3.80⋅10− kg N/ha⋅y 1.13⋅10¡3 kg N eq/ha⋅y
for the production of biofuels, energy allocation (EnA) (based on the
Total 0.01 kg N eq/ha⋅y
lower heating value at product humidity) is the method used to report
a
Including loading beets, and transport by tractor and truck. the carbon footprint within the EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU,
2018). Economic allocation (EcA) was used due to its simplicity and its
ability to illustrate the properties of complex systems. ISO guideline
Table 8
14044 indicates that economic allocation should be used as a last resort
Emissions from sugar production contributing to particulate matter.
when other allocations are not suitable. However, several examples of
Emission Result Units the use of economic allocation are reported in the LCA literature, making
SB transport to the factorya it one of the most common procedures for allocation (Ardente and
Particulates (2.5 μm− 10 μm) 0.02 kg PMtot/ha⋅y Cellura, 2012; Muñoz et al., 2014).
Process energy The prices of the products may change over time, and the period over
Particulates (2.5 μm− 10 μm) 0.33 kg PMtot/ha⋅y
Chemical production
which the average price is estimated may need to be extended in order to
Particulates (2.5 μm− 10 μm) 6.23⋅10 ¡4
kg PMtot/ha⋅y improve the reliability of the final results. In this study, economic
a allocation was based on the estimated average price of white sugar over
Including loading beets, and transport by tractor and truck.
the past ten years, and the corresponding price of the by-products over
the past five years (primary data). All the data used for energy allocation
1 in Fig. 1). The yield of dry WS per t wet weight sugar beet is 161 kg were also primary data, and allocation was carried out according to the
WS/t SB. amount of energy, based on lower heating value at product humidity, for
white sugar and the by-products. The output of the carbonation lime was
3.1. Main by-products of sugar beet excluded from the allocation analysis due to its insignificant economic
value and lack of energy content per t of product. The price and energy
3.1.1. Sugar beet pulp value of each product were multiplied by the amount of each product (t
After raw sugar extraction, a beet pulp is obtained. At the Nordic DM) to obtain the allocation percentage (economic values: 91.1% white
Sugar Factory in Örtofta, some is pressed (pressed sugar beet pulp, PSBP, sugar, 2.9% molasses, 4.4% DSBP, 0.8% PSBP, 0.5% steam and 0.2%
27% DM, No. 3 in Fig. 1), and some is dried (dried sugar beet pulp made heat; energy values: 78.8% white sugar, 7.0% molasses, 11.7% DSBP,
into pellets, DSBP, 90% DM, No. 4 in Fig. 1). The yields per unit wet 1.2% PSBP, 0.6% steam and 0.5% heat). The results of the allocations
weight sugar beet are 6.4 kg DM PSBP and 25.2 kg DM DSBP per t wet are discussed in Section 6.2. The Örtofta Sugar Factory sells energy,
weight sugar beet. Pulp is an abundant residue from sugar which cannot be taken into consideration using mass allocation.

5
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

5. Fossil-fuelled process energy – a hot Spot

The process energy input is currently mainly derived from fossil

fuels, using heat obtained mostly from the combustion of fossil natural
gas. The impact of substituting natural gas for heat production with
softwood chips from logging residues was investigated in order to
determine whether this would significantly reduce the emission of fossil
carbon dioxide. (Logging residues are the tops and branches from final
felling.) The estimated potential for the sustainable outtake of logging
residues for energy use in Sweden is 110 PJ/y, of which 35 PJ/y is
currently used (Börjesson, 2016; Energimarknadsinspektionen, 2019).
The assumptions and emissions related to the use of logging residues can
be found in Table S6.

6. Results and Discussion

6.1. Environmental impact assessment

The environmental impact of the production of white sugar from

sugar beet was evaluated in terms of total GWP, total FEP, total MEP and
total PM for the functional unit of 1 tonne of white sugar (WS) without
allocation. In this case, all the emissions derived from the by-products
were allocated to the main product, white sugar.
Fig. 3. The various contributions to freshwater eutrophication resulting from
the cultivation and production of white sugar without allocation. Prod. denotes
sugar production and Cult. cultivation. Sugar beet transport to the factory and
process energy do not affect the total freshwater eutrophication.

6.1.1. Global warming potential

Fig. 2 shows the total GHG emissions of 623 kg CO2eq/t WS without
allocation; 273 kg CO2eq/t WS being derived from beet cultivation and
351 kg CO2eq/t WS from sugar production. In other words, 44% of the
total GWP is attributed to sugar beet cultivation and 56% to sugar
production. On a more detailed level, it can be seen that the greatest
contribution is from the fossil fuel used in sugar production (53%),
followed by the biogenic soil emissions to air during cultivation (25%).
The production of agrochemicals accounts for 11% of the total impact,
while the diesel used in agricultural machinery and transporting the
beets to the factory accounts for only 7% and 3% of the total impact,
respectively (Further details can be found in Table S7.).

6.1.2. Freshwater and marine eutrophication potential

The total emissions from beet cultivation and white sugar production
that may cause freshwater and marine eutrophication are shown in
Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The freshwater eutrophication represents a
total value of 38.5 g Peq/t WS. Sugar beet cultivation is thus responsible
Fig. 4. The various contributions to marine eutrophication resulting from the
cultivation and production of white sugar without allocation. Prod. denotes
sugar production and Cult. cultivation.

for 99.7% of the total impact, and sugar production for 0.3%. It should
be noted that phosphorus leaching is relatively low for clay soil, which is
the dominating soil type in the southwest of Sweden. It can be seen from
Fig. 3, that the emissions to freshwater are mainly from leaching from
beet cultivation, representing 96.3% of the total impact. The production
of the agrochemicals used in beet cultivation and the production of
chemicals used in sugar production account for 3.4% and 0.3% of the
total impact, respectively. The diesel used is negligible (1.4⋅10− 4% of
the total). (Further details are given in Table S8.).
The total marine eutrophication (Fig. 4) represents a value of 1236 g
Neq/t WS. The greatest impact results from sugar beet cultivation: 97.5%
compared to 2.5% for sugar production. Of this 97.5%, most (95.6%) is
derived from NO3 leaching. The reason for this is the nitrogen leakage
from the fertilisers used (biogenic soil emissions). The other contribu­
tions are much smaller (Further details can be found in Table S9.).

Fig. 2. The various contributions to the total GHG emissions resulting from the 6.1.3. Particulate matter
cultivation and production of white sugar without allocation. Prod. denotes Fig. 5 shows the total particle emissions from beet cultivation and
sugar production and Cult. cultivation. The production of chemicals used as white sugar production, which had a value of 106 g PMtot/t WS. It can be
process additives at the sugar factory does not affect the total GHG emissions.

6
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Fig. 5. The various contributions to the particle emissions resulting from the
Fig. 7. Total freshwater eutrophication resulting from the production of white
cultivation and production of white sugar without allocation. Prod. denotes
sugar and its by-products using economic and energy allocations. The result
sugar production and Cult. cultivation. Biogenic soil emissions do not affect the
with no allocation for white sugar is included for comparison. Pressed sugar
total particle emission.
beet pulp (PSBP), and dried sugar beet pulp made into pellets (DSBP).

seen that sugar beet cultivation was responsible for 67% of the total
impact (or 71 g PMtot/t WS) and sugar production 33% (or 35 g PMtot/t
WS). On a greater level of detail, it can be noted that the greatest impact
arose from the production of agrochemicals (57%), followed by the
process energy (31%) and the diesel required for cultivation (10%). The
other contributions are much smaller (Further details are given in
Table S10.).

6.2. The allocation approach

As outlined above, two allocations, energy (EnA) and economic

(EcA), were also analysed and compared for white sugar and its by-
products, per unit weight DM, in terms of total GWP, FEP, MEP and
PM. The results are shown in Figs. 6–9, including the results with no
allocation (NoA) for comparison.
Regarding the product, white sugar, no significant differences were
observed between the various impact categories when using energy
allocation and economic allocation. The reason for this is the high share
of emissions allocated to the product (79% in EnA and 91% in EcA).
Fig. 8. Total marine eutrophication resulting from the production of white
sugar and its by-products using economic and energy allocations. The result
with no allocation for white sugar is included for comparison. Pressed sugar
beet pulp (PSBP), and dried sugar beet pulp made into pellets (DSBP).

However, the allocation of emissions to the white sugar reduced the

Fig. 6. Total GHG emissions resulting from the production from white sugar
and its by-products using economic and energy allocations. The result with no
allocation for white sugar is included for comparison. Pressed sugar beet pulp
(PSBP), and dried sugar beet pulp made into pellets (DSBP).
emissions by 9% in EcA (568 kg CO2eq/t WS, Fig. 6) and by 21% in EnA
(491 kg CO2eq/t WS, Fig. 6), compared to NoA (623 kg CO2eq/t WS,
Fig. 6). Regarding differences between the two allocation approaches,
the low economic value of the by-products led to rather low emissions
for all the by-products in EcA. The by-products represent 24% of the
mass (DM) output, but only 9% of the economic value. The GHG emis­
sions attributable to the by-products will thus be low in EcA, and were in
the range of 127 (PSBP) to 178 (DSBP) kg CO2eq/t DM. This is in line
with reports on the emissions associated with the use of cereal straw for
bioenergy applications in Europe, of 70–170 kg CO2eq/t DM (Giuntoli
et al., 2015). Wheat straw has been identified as the most promising
currently unexploited agricultural feedstock for the biobased chemicals
industry in Europe (Thorenz et al., 2018). The low GHG emissions from
the by-products of sugar production will thus likely also make these
by-products attractive as feedstock for biobased products. The
by-products from the Nordic Sugar Factory at Örtofta amount to, on
average, (2015–2018) 83,000 t DM annually. This is a significant

7
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Table 10
The change in the two most affected impact categories, GWP and PM (%), in
terms of process energy, when natural gas is replaced by softwood chips for the
generation of heat for process energy in the sugar factory, expressed per tonne of
white sugar without allocation.
Process Units Heat from Heat from Change
energy softwood chips natural gas (%)
White sugar

GWP kg CO2eq/t 50.9 331.7 ¡84.65

WS
PM g tot.PM/t 43.7 33.3 31.23
WS

with the use of natural gas. The difference in the two most affected
impact categories at the sugar factory, GWP and PM (%), are given in
Table 10 in terms of process energy emissions.

8. Comparison of the calculated GHG emissions with other

results in the literature
Fig. 9. Total particle emission resulting from the production of white sugar and
its by-products using economic and energy allocations. The result with no Calculations of the total impact of producing white sugar from sugar
allocation for white sugar is included for comparison. Pressed sugar beet pulp beet can be very sensitive to methodological choices and system
(PSBP), and dried sugar beet pulp made into pellets (DSBP). boundaries, making comparisons between different studies complicated,
and sometimes unreliable (Klenk et al., 2012). For this reason, the
amount for only one factory as the overall EU bio-based production comparison presented in this section includes only studies with very
accounts for about 4.7 Mt of bio-based chemicals per year (European similar characteristics to those in the current study, i.e.
Commission, 2019). cradle-to-factory-gate studies in which economic and energy allocation
Energy allocation was based on the lower heating value of the were applied. As a consequence of this limitation, it was only possible to
products at product humidity. This means that dry by-products will have compare GHG emissions for the final product, white sugar, using eco­
emissions similar to those of white sugar, since the energy contents of nomic allocation. The results of this comparison are given in Table 11.
the products are similar. The DSBP, which is a fibrous residue that re­ Estimates of GHG emissions resulting from the production of white
quires more complicated pretreatment and conversion before it can be sugar from sugar beet found in the literature ranged from 610 to 1040 kg
converted into biofuels and biochemicals, would be responsible for CO2eq/t WS. However, the value obtained in the present study was
almost as high emissions per unit mass DM as the pure and easily con­ lower, 568 kg CO2eq/t WS. The second lowest result, of 610 kg CO2eq/t
verted sucrose. Energy allocation may therefore not promote the use of WS, was presented by Fereday et al. (2010) for sugar produced in the
the by-products instead of white sugar in the production of biofuels and USA. However, the period over which prices were estimated in the
biochemicals with low environmental impact. economic allocation was not specified, and the characterisation factors
used for each emission were not given. Furthermore, only two by-
7. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable fuels for process heat products were considered in their study, pulp and molasses. Despite
this, our findings and those of Fereday et al. are in good agreement.
The substitution of natural gas with softwood chips as the main en­ Setzer (2005) also omitted to specify the period during which the prices
ergy source was investigated to determine the potential to reduce the were estimated, and the by-products studied also differed from ours.
environmental impact of this sugar factory. The results for white sugar Their value was almost twice that of ours. Klenk et al. (2012) reported an
without allocation were analysed for all the impact categories, however, EU average value of GHG emissions for white sugar of 737 kg CO2eq/t
the impact categories most affected were GWP and PM, the results for WS, based on an average of 3 years’ price fluctuation. This is 1.3 times
which are given in Table 9. higher than the value estimated in the present study, based on the sugar
A significant decrease in GHG emissions, of about 45%, was observed factory at Örtofta in southern Sweden. Moreover, our results are the only
upon replacing natural gas with softwood chips for the generation of ones to date based on the average price over several years (10 years for
heat at the sugar factory. In contrast, the total particulate matter emis­ white sugar, and 4–5 years for the by-products).
sion increased with the use of softwood chips, by about 10%, compared Only one other result could be found in the literature using energy
allocation when applying the above criteria, that by Klenk et al. (2012).
They reported GHG emissions for white sugar based on lower heating
Table 9 value allocation (as in the present study) of about 585 kg CO2eq/t WS,
The change in the impact categories (%) when natural gas is replaced by soft­ which is slightly higher than the value found in the present study (491
wood chips as the main energy source in the sugar factory, expressed per tonne kg CO2eq/t WS).
of white sugar without allocation.
Impact Units Heat from Heat from Change 9. Conclusions
category softwood chips natural gas (%)
White sugar
In this study, the emissions resulting from the production of white
GWP kg CO2eq/t 342.5 623.3 - 45.0
sugar and its by-products from sugar beet have been investigated. A
WS
FEP g Peq/t WS 38.53 38.53 0.0a cradle-to-factory-gate approach was used, and GWP, FEP, MEP and PM
MEP g Neq/t WS 1240.3 1236.40 0.4 were determined without allocation, and with economic and energy
PM g tot.PM/t 116.8 106.4 9.8 allocation. The results without allocation showed that cultivation was
WS responsible for most of the emissions. The application of the allocation
a
FEP is not affected by this change as most of the effect arises from sugar beet strategies reduced the emissions for white sugar, as the by-products were
cultivation. considered separately. It was noted that the low economic value of the

8
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211

Table 11
Comparison of the total GHG emissions resulting from white sugar production from sugar beet in the current study, using economic allocation, with values found in the
literature, including only studies with similar characteristics.
Source Geographical location Method kg CO2eq/t By-products Period of price estimation
WS

Present studya Nordic Sugar Örtofta Factory ReCiPe 568 Molasses, dried sugar beet pulp, pressed sugar 10 years for white sugar ((2007–2017)
(Sweden) midpoint beet pulp, steam and heat 5 years for by-products (2012–2016)
Klenk et al. EU GWP100b 737 Wet, pressed and dried pulp, molasses, 3 years for white sugar and by-products
(2012) surplus electricity and surplus heat (2008-2009-2010)
Fereday et al., USA Not specified 610 Pulp and molasses Not specified
2010.c
Setzer, Germany Not specified 1040 Molasses, beet pulp, betaine and raffinate Not specified
2005c
a
Economic allocation based on primary data.
b
Based on GWP100 (the 100-year time frame) 100-year IPCC global warming potentials were used to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalents of all non-CO2 gases
(IPCC, 2007). The characterisation factors used were therefore the same (CO2 (fossil) = 1 kg CO2eq, CH4 (fossil and biogenic) = 298 kg CO2eq, N2O = 25 kg CO2eq).
c
These studies are referenced in the study by Klenk et al.

by-products led to fairly low emissions for all the by-products when
applying EcA, compared to EnA. Comparison of the estimated GHG
emissions from white sugar production found in the literature showed
that production at the Örtofta factory gave the lowest emissions. It was
not possible to compare the by-products due to a lack of information in
the literature. Finally, the substitution of fossil natural gas with soft­
wood chips as the primary energy source at the factory illustrated the
considerable potential for reducing the carbon footprint of sugar pro­
duction, by 45%. However, such a change would increase the PM
emission by about 10%, illustrating the importance of broad evaluations
to identify conflicting environmental impacts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Maria Nelly Garcia Gonzalez: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
Lovisa Björnsson: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – re­
view & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Funding from The Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning for the project “Farm2Furan:
Surplus agricultural feedstocks to furanics” is gratefully acknowledged.
Nordic Sugar A/S and Nordic Sugar AB, Technology & Innovation, are
acknowledged for kindly providing primary data for sugar production.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131211.
References
Alexiades, A., Kendall, A., Winans, K.S., Kaffka, S.R., 2018. Sugar beet ethanol (Beta
vulgaris L.): a promising low-carbon pathway for ethanol production in California.
J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3907–3917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.059.
Ardente, F., Cellura, M., 2012. Economic allocation in life cycle assessment: the state of
the art and discussion of examples. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 387–398. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00434.x.
Arshad, M., Hussain, T., Iqbal, M., Abbas, M., 2017. Enhanced ethanol production at
commercial scale from molasses using high gravity technology by mutant S.
cerevisiae. Braz. J. Microbiol. 48, 403–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bjm.2017.02.003.
Börjesson, P., 2016. Potential för ökad tillförsel och avsättning av inhemsk biomassa i en
växande svensk bioekonomi. Report No 97. Environmental and Energy Systems
Studies. Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Börjesson, P., Tufvesson, L.M., 2011. Agricultural crop-based biofuels - resource
efficiency and environmental performance including direct land use changes.
J. Clean. Prod. 19, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.001.
Bos, H.L., Meesters, K.P.H., Conijn, S.G., Corré, W.J., Patel, M.K., 2012. Accounting for
the constrained availability of land: a comparison of bio-based ethanol,
polyethylene, and PLA with regard to non-renewable energy use and land use.
Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 6, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1320.
Brouns, F., 2015. Who guideline: “sugars intake for adults and children” raises some
question marks. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 26, 34–36.
Brouns, Fred, 2015. WHO guideline. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 26, 34–36. https://doi.org/
10.1177/156482658000200103.
Buchspies, B., Kaltschmitt, M., 2016. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol from wheat and
sugar beet discussing environmental impacts of multiple concepts of co-product
processing in the context of the European Renewable Energy Directive. Biofuels 7,
141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1122472.
Cárdenas-Fernández, M., Bawn, M., Hamley-Bennett, C., Bharat, P.K.V., Subrizi, F.,
Suhaili, N., Ward, D.P., Bourdin, S., Dalby, P.A., Hailes, H.C., Hewitson, P.,
Ignatova, S., Kontoravdi, C., Leak, D.J., Shah, N., Sheppard, T.D., Ward, J.M., Lye, G.
J., 2017. An integrated biorefinery concept for conversion of sugar beet pulp into
value-added chemicals and pharmaceutical intermediates. Faraday Discuss 202,
415–431. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7fd00094d.
Concha Olmos, J., Zúñiga Hansen, M.E., 2012. Enzymatic depolymerization of sugar beet
pulp: production and characterization of pectin and pectic-oligosaccharides as a
potential source for functional carbohydrates. Chem. Eng. J. 192, 29–36. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.03.085.
Curtin, L.V., Lane, W., 1983. Molasses - general considerations. In: Molasses in Animal
Nutrition.
de Figueiredo, E.B., Panosso, A.R., Romão, R., La Scala Jr., N., 2010. Greenhouse gas
emission associated with sugar production in southern Brazil. Carbon Bal. Manag. 5,
7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-5-3.
Duraisamy, R., Salelgn, K., Berekete, A.K., 2017. Production of beet sugar and bio-
ethanol from sugar beet and it bagasse: a review. Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 43,
222–233. https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V43P237.
Energimarknadsinspektionen, 2019. Produktion Per Prisområde Fjärrvärme. Swedish
Energy Markets Inspectorate, Eskilstuna, Sweden.
EU, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, 2018 Off. J. Eur. Union
82–209.
European Commission, 2018. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the
Connection between Economy. society and the environment. https://doi.org/
10.2777/478385.
European Commission website, 2019. The Future of Bio-Based Chemicals in the EU
Bioeconomy. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/future-bio-based-chemic
als-eu-bioeconomy. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
European Commission website, 2021. EU sugar. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-
fisheries/plants-and-plant-products/plant-products/sugar_en. (Accessed 11 January
2022).
European Environment Agency, 2019. Eutrophication Remains a Major Problem for
Europe’s Seas Despite Some Progress. https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eutro
phication-remains-a-major-problem. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
European Environment Agency, 2021. Air pollution. Health impacts of air pollution 86,
5237–5238. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/health-impacts-of-air-
pollution. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
García, C.A., García-Treviño, E.S., Aguilar-Rivera, N., Armendáriz, C., 2016. Carbon
footprint of sugar production in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2632–2641. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.113.
Giuntoli, J., Agostini, A., Edwards, R., Marelli, L., 2015–2016. Solid and Gaseous
Bioenergy Pathways: Input Values and GHG Emissions. Calculated According to the
Methodology Set in COM. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
p. 767. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1893b3a1-3f61-
11e7-a08e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. (Accessed 11 January 2022).

9
M.N. Garcia Gonzalez and L. Björnsson
Gumienna, M., Szambelan, K., Jeleń, H., Czarnecki, Z., 2014. Evaluation of ethanol
fermentation parameters for bioethanol production from sugar beet pulp and juice.
J. Inst. Brew. 120, 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.181.
IPCC, 2006. In: Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 4 (Chapter 11).
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html. (Accessed 11 January
2022).
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework. Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jaggard, K.W., Townsend, B., 2014. Sugar beet ethanol in the EU. In: Langeveld, H.,
Dixon, J., Van Keulen, H. (Eds.), Biofuel Cropping Systems: Carbon, Land and Food.
Routledge, New York, p. 114e137.
Klenk, I., Landquist, B., de Imana, O.R., 2012. The product carbon footprint of EU beet
sugar. Sugar Ind. J. 137, 169–177.
Laude, A., Ricci, O., Bureau, G., Royer-Adnot, J., Fabbri, A., 2011. CO2capture and
storage from a bioethanol plant: carbon and energy footprint and economic
assessment. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 5, 1220–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijggc.2011.06.004.
Maitah, M., Řezbová, H., Smutka, L., Tomšík, K., 2016. European sugar production and
its control in the world market. Sugar Tech 18, 236–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12355-016-0439-9.
Mohr, A., Raman, S., 2013. Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the
sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energy Pol. 63, 114–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.033.
Muñoz, I., Flury, K., Jungbluth, N., Rigarlsford, G., I Canals, L.M., King, H., 2014. Life
cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural
feedstocks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-
013-0613-1.
Nicodème, T., Berchem, T., Jacquet, N., Richel, A., 2018. Thermochemical conversion of
sugar industry by-products to biofuels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 88, 151–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.037.
Nordic Sugar Website, 2022. http://www.nordicsugar.com/about-nordic-sugar/our-o
rganisation/our-locations/oertofta/. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
Pacheco, R., Silva, C., 2019. Global warming potential of biomass-to-ethanol : review and
sensitivity analysis through a case study. Energies 12, 2535. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en12132535.
ReCiPe, 2016 v1. 1. A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and
endpoint level. Rep. IBM: Character. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/downlo
ad/Report_ReCiPe_2017.pdf. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 346 (2022) 131211
Řezbová, H., Belová, A., Škubna, O., 2013. Agris on-line papers in economics and
informatics sugar beet production in the European union and their future trends.
Agris on-line Pap. Econ. Informatics 5.
Salazar-Ordóñez, M., Pérez-Hernández, P.P., Martín-Lozano, J.M., 2013. Sugar beet for
bioethanol production: an approach based on environmental agricultural outputs.
Energy Pol. 55, 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.063.
Shahbandeh, M., 2021. Sugar Beet Production Worldwide from 1965 to 2019. Statista
website. https://www.statista.com/statistics/249609/sugar-beet-production-wor
ldwide/.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2018a. National Inventory Report 2018.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories 1990-2016. https://www.naturvardsverket.
se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/internationellt-miljoarbete/miljokonventioner/
FN/national-inventory-report-2018.pdf. (Accessed 11 January 2022).
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2018b. Informative Inventory Report
Sweden 2018 1–273. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/sa-mar-miljon/kli
mat-och-luft/luft/luftfororeningar/informative-inventory-report-sweden-2018.pdf.
(Accessed 11 January 2022).
Thorenz, A., Wietschel, L., Stindt, D., Tuma, A., 2018. Assessment of agroforestry residue
potentials for the bioeconomy in the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 348–359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.143.
Tomaszewska, J., Bieliński, D., Binczarski, M., Berlowska, J., Dziugan, P., Piotrowski, J.,
Stanishevsky, A., Witońska, I.A., 2018. Products of sugar beet processing as raw
materials for chemicals and biodegradable polymers. RSC Adv. 8, 3161–3177.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra12782k.
Trenda, E., 2021. European Union-27: Sugar Beet Production Volume Forecast 2016-
2029. Statista website. https://www.statista.com/statistics/549674/sugar-beet-
production-volume-european-union-28/.
Van Putten, R.J., Van Der Waal, J.C., De Jong, E., Rasrendra, C.B., Heeres, H.J., De
Vries, J.G., 2013. Hydroxymethylfurfural, a versatile platform chemical made from
renewable resources. Chem. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr300182k.
Vargas-Ramirez, J.M., Wiesenborn, D.P., Ripplinger, D.G., Pryor, S.W., 2017. Carbon
footprint of industrial-beet sugars stored as raw thick juice for use as a fermentation
feedstock. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1418–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.06.153.
Yousefi, M., Khoramivafa, M., Mondani, F., 2014. Integrated evaluation of energy use,
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential for sugar beet (Beta
vulgaris) agroecosystems in Iran. Atmos. Environ. 92, 501–505. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.050.