sustainability

Article
Energy Conservation Potential Assessment Method
for Table Grapes Supply Chain
Xinqing Xiao 1,2 , Xu Zhang 1,2 , Zetian Fu 1,2 , Weisong Mu 1,2 and Xiaoshuan Zhang 1,2, *
1 College of Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China; xxqjd@cau.edu.cn (X.X.);
zhxu@cau.edu.cn (X.Z.); fzt@cau.edu.cn (Z.F.); wsmu@cau.edu.cn (W.M.)
2 Beijing Laboratory of Food Quality and Safety, Beijing 100083, China
* Correspondence: zhxshuan@cau.edu.cn




Received: 19 June 2018; Accepted: 9 August 2018; Published: 10 August 2018


Abstract: Energy consumption is one of the most crucial issues in the table grapes supply chain.
However, the potential for energy conservation assessment is still limited because of the complexity
of the process. The aim of this paper is to propose an energy conservation potential assessment
method in order to increase energy consumption transparency and help managers take appropriate
energy conservation measures to reduce the energy consumption in the table grapes supply chain.
The conservation potential assessment in three kinds of the supply chain modes (the normal
chain, the cold insulation chain and the cold chain), were realized by integrating the actual energy
consumption investigated with the unified energy consumption per unit energy factor that represents
the energy consumption throughout the entire product lifecycle. According to the comprehensive
analysis of the energy consumption compared with the energy conservation potential in actual supply
chain of table grapes, the proposed energy conservation potential assessment method could provide
a unified method for evaluating the energy conservation potential in different supply chain mode
of table grapes. The energy conversation potential in cold insulation chain, which was about 0.985,
was the highest and that in cold chain, which was about 0.935, was the smallest. However, the cold
chain was still the optimal supply chain for the table grapes because of the characteristics of the
longest storage shelf life and the lowest quality decay, and the cold chain energy consumption would
be further reduced by adopting the more advanced refrigeration and preservation technologies.
The proposed energy conservation potential assessment method could be extended for other supply
chain applications to evaluate their own energy conservation potential, and thus, reduce their
energy consumption.

Keywords: table grapes; energy conservation potential; energy consumption; energy factor; supply chain

1. Introduction
Energy consumption is one of the most crucial issues in the massive application of the table grapes
supply chain [1]. In recent years, the table grapes supply chain has been developed rapidly with
the swift increase in the table grapes production and consumer demand [2–4]. The massive energy
consumption has been also increased, owing to the energy-intensive characteristic of the table grapes
supply chain [5–7]. However, the energy consumption in the supply chain, for example, the electricity,
the petroleum and the natural gas, are part of the non-renewable energy resources [8–10]. Therefore,
it is necessary and important to synthetically assess the energy consumption and energy conservation
potential in table grapes supply chain.
There are mainly three kinds of table grapes supply chain modes that are applied widely. They
are the normal chain, the cold insulation chain and the cold chain. The normal chain of the table
grapes, which is most and widely used, is mainly applied in short distance transportation, and the

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845; doi:10.3390/su10082845 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 2 of 14

table grapes are all transported at the ambient environment in the chain [11–13]. The cold insulation
chain, which is applied in medium distance transportation, are fully pre-cooled and stored at the low
temperature by refrigeration method, and then transported to the market with the method of the cold
insulation such as the quilt covering method [14]. The temperature in the cold insulation transportation
increases slowly and the quality of the table grapes also decays slowly [15]. The cold chain, which
is used for long-distance transportation, are also fully pre-cooled and stored at the low temperature
by refrigeration method, and then refrigeration transported to the market [16]. The temperature is
kept at a low temperature with the refrigeration method all the time [17]. However, the challenging
issue for the energy conservation potential assessment of the different supply chain mode still exists,
because the different supply chain mode has a different process and cost to guarantee the quality and
safety of the table grapes. The more the process in the supply chain, the more devices are needed,
thus contributing towards more energy consumption [18,19].
Currently, various studies about energy consumption and conservation potential in different
energy-intensive supply chains have been reported. Chen et al. [20] have reported the energy
conservation and optimization for the shale gas supply chain planning based on the life cycle
assessment. Shen et al. [21] discussed the low carbon supply chain practices in China’s textile industry
by evaluating the energy consumption in actual supply chain, and finally made the optimal decisions of
the supply chain. McBrien et al. [22] have analyzed the energy conservation potential in a typical steel
supply chain by the integrated heat recovery method. Wang and Rutherford [23] have assessed the
energy consumption and conservation potential in natural gas supply chain by the liquefied natural
gas carriers. Vanek and Sun [24] explored the energy conservation potential for the temperature
controlled perishable food supply chain, from crop to packaged product to consumer, by integrating
the life cycle energy consumption model. However, most of these studies are focused on the single or
typical process of the supply chain, and the unified energy conservation assessment method is needed
to be applied to the different supply chain modes of table grapes.
Energy consumption per unit energy factor method, which is a scientific and reasonable energy
consumption evaluation index to represent the total energy consumption of product per kilogram
processed and the average energy conservation potential of the product throughout its entire lifecycle,
provides a unified way for the different process of the industries [25–27]. For example, Zhang and
Li [28] have calculated and estimated the energy consumption and energy conservation potential
of the product lifecycle, from cradle to grave, based on the energy factor method. Feng et al. [29]
and Xie [30] have assessed the energy consumption and energy conservation potential in the refinery
industry by adopting the energy consumption per unit energy factor method, and the evaluation
results showed that the method could effectively represent the energy conservation potential of the
process in refinery industry.
The main objective of this study is to propose an energy conservation potential assessment method
for the supply chain management of table grapes. The energy consumption and conservation potential
assessment in three kinds of supply chain mode, which are the normal chain, the cold insulation chain
and the cold chain, were realized by integrating the actual energy consumption investigated with the
unified energy consumption per unit energy factor. The energy consumption analysis in the normal
chain, the cold insulation chain and the cold chain, the energy consumption comparison and the energy
conservation potential in table grapes supply chain were comprehensively evaluated in actual supply
chain of table grapes. The proposed energy conservation potential assessment method could provide
a unified method for evaluating the energy conservation potential in different supply chain mode
of table grapes, increase the energy consumption transparency, and finally help the manager take
the appropriate energy conservation measures to reduce the energy consumption in different supply
chain mode.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The energy conservation potential materials and
methods are described in Section 2. The evaluation results of the energy conservation potential method
are discussed in Section 3. Conclusions and future work are presented in Section 4.
Sustainability 2018, 10,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33of
of 14
14

2. Materials and Methods

This section
sectionillustrates
illustratesthethe materials
materials andand methods
methods forresearch
for the the research
in moreindetail,
morewhich
detail,includes
which
includes the properties
the properties of the
of the table tablesupply
grapes grapeschain
supply chain investigated,
investigated, the calculation
the energy energy calculation
methodmethod
for the
for the consumption
energy energy consumption
calculation,calculation,
the energythe energy consumption
consumption assessment
assessment method, andmethod, and the
the experimental
experimental
scheme for thescheme
actual for the actual
supply supply consumption
chain energy chain energy assessment.
consumption assessment.

2.1. Properties
2.1. Properties of
of the
the Tale
Tale Grapes
Grapes Supply
Supply Chain
Chain Investigated
Investigated
To understand
To understand more
more about
about thethe properties
properties and
and energy
energy consumption
consumption of of the
the table
table grapes
grapes supply
supply
chain, the field observation and investigation method was conducted in China in 2016.
chain, the field observation and investigation method was conducted in China in 2016. Three kinds Three kinds of
table grapes supply chain were classified according to the different transportation distance.
of table grapes supply chain were classified according to the different transportation distance. They They are
the normal
are chain,
the normal cold insulation
chain, chain chain
cold insulation and the cold
and chain.
the cold The normal
chain. The chain
normal of chain
table grapes is grapes
of table most andis
widely used for short distance transportation with the ambient environment. The
most and widely used for short distance transportation with the ambient environment. The cold cold insulation chain
is applied in
insulation the medium
chain distance
is applied transportation
in the medium with
distance the low temperature
transportation with theinlow
coldtemperature
insulation method,
in cold
and the coldmethod,
insulation chain is and
used the
for the
coldlong-distance
chain is usedtransportation with the low
for the long-distance temperature inwith
transportation refrigeration
the low
method all theintime.
temperature The normal
refrigeration chain all
method wasthe
conducted
time. Thefrom the Hebei
normal chain province to Beijing
was conducted city.the
from The cold
Hebei
insulationtochain
province wascity.
Beijing chosen
ThefromcoldXingjiang
insulationuygur
chainautonomous
was chosenregion to Shandong
from Xingjiang province
uygur and the
autonomous
cold chain was from Xingjiang uygur autonomous region to Guangzhou
region to Shandong province and the cold chain was from Xingjiang uygur autonomous regioncity. The workflow of the
to
table grapes supply chain is demonstrated in Figure 1.
Guangzhou city. The workflow of the table grapes supply chain is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
The workflow
workflow of
of table
table grapes
grapes supply
supply chain.
chain.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 4 of 14

As shown in Figure 1, the first step for all the table grapes supply chain was picking and packing
at the farm or the greenhouse, and then ordinarily transported to the pre-cooling and storage in the
cold storage for the cold insulation chain and the cold chain, and to the gathering in the distribution
center for the normal chain. Finally, the stored table grapes were cold insulation and refrigeration
transported to the market for sale in cold insulation and cold chain, and the gathered table grapes
were ordinarily transported to the market for sale in normal chain.
The energy in the pre-cooling and storage process of the cold insulation and cold chain are
mainly consumed from the electricity, and the energy in the transportation process of all the supply
chain, which includes the ordinary transportation from the farm or the greenhouse to cold storage
or distribution center and the cold storage or distribution center to the market, are mainly consumed
from the diesel oil of the truck.
However, the energy consumption in the different supply chains is not comparable and cannot
comprehensively evaluate the energy consumption level and energy conservation potential in the table
grapes supply chains, because of the complex composition of the supply chain and the different kinds
of energy source in different phases. It is important to assess the energy consumption in different
phases and explore the energy conservation potential in table grapes supply chain.

2.2. Energy Consumption Calculation Method

The energy calculation method is applied to calculate the energy consumption in the process of
the pre-cooling, storage and transportation according to the actual supply chain investigation.
The pre-cooling energy in cold insulation and cold chain consist of the power of the pre-cooling
equipment and the pre-cooling time of the table grapes in cold storage. The pre-cooling energy Q P is
calculated as demonstrated in Equation (1).

Q P = Pp t p (1)

where the Pp is the power of the pre-cooling equipment and the t p is the pre-cooling time of the table
grapes in cold storage.
The storage energy in the cold insulation and cold chain are composed of the power of the
refrigeration plant and the refrigeration time of the table grapes in cold storage. The storage energy
QS is calculated as illustrated in Equation (2).

QS = Ps ts (2)

where the Ps is the power of the refrigeration plant and the ts is the refrigeration time of the table
grapes in cold storage.
The transportation is the critical and essential process in the supply chain. The energy in cold
insulation and normal chain transportation are mainly the driving energy, while the energy in cold
chain transportation is mainly composed of the driving energy and the refrigeration energy.
The driving energy is related to the driving engine power and transportation time. The refrigeration
energy is related to the power of the refrigeration plant and the refrigeration time in refrigeration
transportation. The transportation energy Q T is calculated as described in Equations (3)–(5).

Q T = Q d + Qr (3)

Qd = Pd td (4)

Qr = Pr tr (5)

where the Qd is the driving energy, the Qr is the refrigeration energy in refrigeration transportation,
the Pd is the driving engine power of the truck, the td is the total transportation time, the Pr
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 5 of 14

is the power of the refrigeration plant and the tr is the refrigeration time of the table grapes in
refrigeration transportation.

2.3. Energy Conservation Potential Assessment Method

The energy consumption per unit energy factor [28–30], which is a scientific and reasonable energy
consumption evaluation index to represent the total energy consumption of product per kilogram
processed and the average energy conservation potential of the supply chain, was applied to assess the
comprehensive energy consumption of table grapes supply chain through its entire lifecycle in various
situations. The energy conservation potential of the product was higher if its value was also higher.
Assuming that the table grapes supply chain includes n energy consumption phases, the number
of the table grapes processed in the phases are A1 , A2 , · · · , An , the actual energy consumption in the
phases are E1 , E2 , · · · , En and the calculated energy consumption in the phases are C1 , C2 , · · · , Cn ,
then the energy consumption per unit energy factor of table grapes supply chain U is defined as
Equation (6).
n
( ∑ Ai Ei )/( A1 E1 )
i =1
U= n (6)
( ∑ Ai Ci )/( A1 C1 )
i =1
n
where the ( ∑ Ai Ci )/( A1 C1 ) is the energy factor that represents the complexity of table grapes supply
i =1
n
chain, the ∑ Ai Ei represents the calculated theoretical energy consumption of table grapes supply
i =1
n
chain, and the ∑ Ai Ci represents the actual energy consumption.
i =1

2.4. Experimental Scheme

The Kyoho table grapes (Vitis vinifera L. × V. labrusca L. cv. Kyoho) were chosen as the experimental
material. Three experiments were performed to the table grapes supply chain of the normal chain, cold
insulation and cold chain. The experimental scheme of the table grapes supply chain is demonstrated
in Figure 2.

• Experiment I was conducted for the normal chain of table grapes for investigating the energy
consumption in the process of the ordinary transportation.
• Experiment II was performed in relation to the cold insulation chain of table grapes for
calculating the energy consumption in the process of the pre-cooling, the storage and the cold
insulation transportation.
• Experiment III was conducted for the cold chain of table grapes for evaluating the energy
consumption in the process of the pre-cooling, the storage and the refrigeration transportation.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 6 of 14
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

Figure 2. The experimental scheme of table grapes supply chain.

Figure 2. The experimental scheme of table grapes supply chain.
For Experiment I, the table grapes were picked and packed in a greenhouse from Hebei
province, and ordinarily
For Experiment I, the tabletransported
grapes wereto Beijing
picked city.
andThepacked
table grapes were manually
in a greenhouse fromharvested at
Hebei province,
complete ripeness without machinery and pest damage. The diesel oil
and ordinarily transported to Beijing city. The table grapes were manually harvested at completeconsumption, which includes
the ordinary
ripeness without transportation
machinery and from
pestthe greenhouse
damage. Theto the distribution
diesel center and
oil consumption, from
which the distribution
includes the ordinary
center to Beijing city, was evaluated.
transportation from the greenhouse to the distribution center and from the distribution center to Beijing
For Experiment II, the table grapes, which were the same as the harvest of Experiment I, were
city, was evaluated.
picked and packed in a farm from Xingjiang uygur autonomous region, and finally cold insulation
For Experiment
transported II, theprovince.
to Shandong table grapes, which consumption
The electricity were the same as the harvest
in pre-cooling of Experiment
and storage, and the I,
were diesel
picked and packed in a farm from Xingjiang uygur autonomous region, and
oil consumption which includes the ordinary transportation from the farm to the cold storage finally cold insulation
transported to Shandong
and the cold insulation province.
transportation Thefrom
electricity
the coldconsumption in pre-cooling
storage to Guangzhou city, wereand storage, and the
assessed.
diesel oil For
consumption
ExperimentwhichIII, whichincludes
were thethesame
ordinary transportation
as Experiment fromgrapes
II, the table the farmwere torefrigeration
the cold storage
transported
and the from the
cold insulation Xingjiang uygur
transportation fromautonomous
the cold storageregiontoto Guangzhoucity,
Guangzhou city.were
Theassessed.
electricity
consumption
For Experiment in pre-cooling
III, which were and storage,
the same andas the diesel oil II,
Experiment consumption,
the table grapeswhichwere includes the
refrigeration
ordinary transportation from the farm to the cold storage and the
transported from the Xingjiang uygur autonomous region to Guangzhou city. The electricity refrigeration transportation from
the cold storage to Guangzhou city, were evaluated.
consumption in pre-cooling and storage, and the diesel oil consumption, which includes the ordinary
The table grapes were weighed after the package by using the platform scale (TGT-1000B,
transportation from the farm to the cold storage and the refrigeration transportation from the cold
Shanghai, China). The electricity consumption was measured by recording the power of the
storage to Guangzhou
pre-cooling city, weredevices
and refrigeration evaluated.
and the pre-cooling and the refrigeration time in cold storage.
The table grapes were weighed
The diesel oil consumption was assessed after the package to
by recording bythe
using
enginethepower,
platformthe scale (TGT-1000B,
transportation
Shanghai, China).
distance and The electricity
the average consumption
velocity in cold was measured
insulation by and
chain recording the power
the cold chain, andof thealso
pre-cooling
the
and refrigeration devices
refrigeration plant power and andthe
thepre-cooling
refrigerationandtimethe refrigeration
in the time in coldtransportation
process of refrigeration storage. Theindiesel
cold chain. was assessed by recording to the engine power, the transportation distance and the
oil consumption
average velocity in cold insulation chain and the cold chain, and also the refrigeration plant power
2.5. Statistical Analysis
and the refrigeration time in the process of refrigeration transportation in cold chain.
The energy consumption in table grapes supply chain was analyzed by using energy
2.5. Statistical
consumptionAnalysis
loss rate [31]. The definition is demonstrated as Equation (7).

The energy consumption in table grapes

E  supply
Ci chain was analyzed by using energy consumption
loss rate  i  100%，i  1,2, ,n (7)
loss rate [31]. The definition is demonstrated
Ei as Equation (7).

In addition, the energy consumption E −in C

the
i table grapes supply chain was expressed by mega
loss rate = i × 100%, i = 1, 2, · · · , n (7)
joule (MJ) [32]. The electricity consumption Ei of 1 kWh was about 3600 kJ [33]. The diesel oil
consumption of 1 L was about 0.85 kg [34], and the diesel oil consumption of 1 kg was about 42,652
In addition, the energy consumption in the table grapes supply chain was expressed by mega joule
kJ [35].
(MJ) [32].The
The data statistical
electricity and processing
consumption of 1 kWhwere
wasperformed
about 3600bykJusing
[33]. TheMatlab R2012b
diesel software
oil consumption of
(MathWorks Incorporated, Massachusetts Natick, MN, USA) and Microsoft Office
1 L was about 0.85 kg [34], and the diesel oil consumption of 1 kg was about 42,652 kJ [35]. Excel 2016
software
The data(Microsoft
statisticalCorporation,
and processingRedmond Washington,byRW,
were performed USA).
using Matlab R2012b software (MathWorks
Incorporated, Massachusetts Natick, MN, USA) and Microsoft Office Excel 2016 software (Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond Washington, RW, USA).
Sustainability 2018, 10,
Sustainability 2845
2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14
7 of 14

3. Results
3. Results
Comparison results of the energy consumption and the energy conservation potential in the
table grapes results
Comparison supplyofofthe energy
the normalconsumption
chain, coldand the energy
insulation conservation
chain and cold potential
chain areinanalyzed
the table and
grapes supply of the normal chain, cold insulation chain and cold
assessed in this section according to the experimental scheme. chain are analyzed and assessed in
this section according to the experimental scheme.
3.1. Energy Consumption Analysis in Normal Chain
3.1. Energy Consumption Analysis in Normal Chain
As illustrated in Experiment I, the table grapes in normal chain were transported from Hebei
As illustrated in Experiment I, the table grapes in normal chain were transported from Hebei
province to Beijing city in China. The total weight of the table grapes was about 10,000 kg, and the
province to Beijing city in China. The total weight of the table grapes was about 10,000 kg, and the
time of the whole chain was about 10 h. The energy consumption in normal chain was mainly from
time of the whole chain was about 10 h. The energy consumption in normal chain was mainly from
the transportation process.
the transportation process.
The general small truck, whose engine power was about 22 kW, was employed to the ordinary
The general small truck, whose engine power was about 22 kW, was employed to the ordinary
transportation from the greenhouse to the distribution center. The one-way transportation distance
transportation from the greenhouse to the distribution center. The one-way transportation distance
was about 3 km. The total transportation frequency was about 10, and the average weight was about
was about 3 km. The total transportation frequency was about 10, and the average weight was about
1000 kg every time. The total transportation time was about 5 h. The total diesel oil consumption was
1000 kg every time. The total transportation time was about 5 h. The total diesel oil consumption was
about 13 L in the actual transportation.
about 13 L in the actual transportation.
The general medium truck, whose engine power was about 95 kW, was applied to the ordinary
The general medium truck, whose engine power was about 95 kW, was applied to the ordinary
transportation from the distribution center to the market. The transportation distance was about 202
transportation from the distribution center to the market. The transportation distance was about
km, and the average transportation time was about 5 h. The total diesel oil consumption was about
202 km, and the average transportation time was about 5 h. The total diesel oil consumption was about
56 L in actual transportation.
56 L in actual transportation.
The comparison of the calculated and actual energy consumption in normal chain is
The comparison of the calculated and actual energy consumption in normal chain is demonstrated
demonstrated in Figure 3. The calculated energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from
in Figure 3. The calculated energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from the greenhouse
the greenhouse to the distribution center was about 396 MJ, and the calculated energy consumption
to the distribution center was about 396 MJ, and the calculated energy consumption in the ordinary
in the ordinary transportation from the distribution center to the market was about 1710 MJ. The
transportation from the distribution center to the market was about 1710 MJ. The actual energy
actual energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from the greenhouse to the distribution
consumption in the ordinary transportation from the greenhouse to the distribution center was about
center was about 505.1 MJ, and the actual energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from
505.1 MJ, and the actual energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from the distribution
the distribution center to the market was about 2030.235 MJ.
center to the market was about 2030.235 MJ.

Figure
Figure 3. Comparison
3. Comparison of theofcalculated
the calculated and actual
and actual energy
energy consumption
consumption in normal
in normal chain.chain.

The loss rate of the calculated and actual energy consumption in normal chain was described in
The loss rate of the calculated and actual energy consumption in normal chain was described in
Table 1. The loss rate of the energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from the greenhouse
Table 1. The loss rate of the energy consumption in the ordinary transportation from the greenhouse
to the distribution center (Transportation A) was about 21.59%, and the loss rate of the energy
to the distribution center (Transportation A) was about 21.59%, and the loss rate of the energy
consumption in the ordinary transportation from the distribution center to the market
consumption in the ordinary transportation from the distribution center to the market (Transportation
(Transportation B) was about 15.78%. The total loss rate of the energy consumption in normal chain
B) was about 15.78%. The total loss rate of the energy consumption in normal chain was about 16.93%.
was about 16.93%.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 8 of 14

Table 1. The loss rate of the calculated and actual energy consumption in normal chain.

Table 1. The loss rateProcess

of the calculatedLoss
and Rate
actual(%) Total
energy Loss Rate
consumption (%) chain.
in normal
Transportation A 21.59
16.93
Transportation
Process B Loss Rate
15.78
(%) Total Loss Rate (%)
Transportation A 21.59
3.2. Energy Consumption Analysis inBCold Insulation 16.93
Transportation 15.78 Chain

As illustrated in Experiment II, the table grapes in cold insulation chain were transported from
3.2.Xingjiang
Energy Consumption
uygur autonomousAnalysis in Cold Insulation
region to Shandong Chainprovince in China. The total weight of the table
grapes
As illustrated in Experiment II, the table grapes in of
transported was about 26,000 kg, and the time theinsulation
cold whole chain chainwaswereabout 8 days. The
transported
energy consumption in cold insulation chain was mainly from
from Xingjiang uygur autonomous region to Shandong province in China. The total weight the process of pre-cooling, storage
of
and transportation.
the table grapes transported was about 26,000 kg, and the time of the whole chain was about 8 days.
The energyThe general
consumptionsmall intruck,
coldthe same aschain
insulation Experiment I, wasfrom
was mainly employed to theofordinary
the process transportation
pre-cooling, storage
andfrom the farm to the cold storage. The one-way transportation distance was about 5 km. The total
transportation.
transportation frequency
The general small truck,wasthe about
same as20,Experiment
and the average
I, was weight
employed wastoabout 1300 kgtransportation
the ordinary every time. The
total transportation time was about 39.6 h. The total diesel oil
from the farm to the cold storage. The one-way transportation distance was about 5 km. consumption was about 108The
L intotal
actual
transportation.
transportation frequency was about 20, and the average weight was about 1300 kg every time.
The forced
The total transportation air-cooling
time was method,
aboutwhich
39.6 h.forces the cool
The total diesel airoilflowing in the cold
consumption storage
was about 108inLcycle,
in
was applied to
actual transportation. the pre-cooling and storage. The power of the refrigeration plant in pre-cooling was
about
The 15 kW,air-cooling
forced and the power method, of the refrigeration
which forces theplant
cool airin flowing
storage was in theabout 4 kW. The
cold storage pre-cooling
in cycle, was
time was about 24 h, and the storage refrigeration time in storage was about
applied to the pre-cooling and storage. The power of the refrigeration plant in pre-cooling was about 72 h.
15 kW, andThe the
general
power heavy
of thetruck, whose engine
refrigeration plant inpower
storagewaswasabout
about 2574 kW. kW,Thewas applied time
pre-cooling to the cold
was
insulation chain transportation from the cold storage
about 24 h, and the storage refrigeration time in storage was about 72 h. to the market. The transportation distance was
about 3689 km. The average transportation time was about 4 days,
The general heavy truck, whose engine power was about 257 kW, was applied to the cold and the actual driving time was
about 58chain
insulation h. The total diesel oilfrom
transportation consumption was about
the cold storage to the1642 L in actual
market. transportation.
The transportation distance was
about 3689 km. The average transportation time was about 4 days, and the actual driving timechain
The comparison of the calculated and actual energy consumption in cold insulation was is
illustrated in Figure 4. The calculated energy consumption
about 58 h. The total diesel oil consumption was about 1642 L in actual transportation. in the process of the ordinary
transportation,
The comparison pre-cooling, storage, and
of the calculated andcold insulation
actual transportationinwas
energy consumption coldabout 3136.32chain
insulation MJ, 1296
is
MJ, 1036.8 MJ and 53,661.6 MJ. The actual energy consumption in the
illustrated in Figure 4. The calculated energy consumption in the process of the ordinary transportation, ordinary transportation,
pre-cooling,
pre-cooling, storage
storage, andandcoldcold insulation
insulation chain was
transportation was about
about3915.453
3136.32 MJ, MJ,1296
1332MJ, MJ, 1134MJMJ
1036.8 andand
66,332.39 MJ.
53,661.6 MJ. The actual energy consumption in the ordinary transportation, pre-cooling, storage and
cold insulation chain was about 3915.453 MJ, 1332 MJ, 1134 MJ and 66,332.39 MJ.

Figure
Figure 4. Comparison
4. Comparison of of
thethe calculated
calculated andand actual
actual energy
energy consumption
consumption in cold
in cold insulation
insulation chain.
chain.

TheThe
lossloss
raterate
of theofcalculated
the calculated and energy
and actual actual consumption
energy consumption in cold chain
in cold insulation insulation chain is
is presented
in presented
Table 2. Theinloss
Table
rate 2.
of The loss rate
the energy of the energy
consumption in the consumption in the ordinary
ordinary transportation, transportation,
pre-cooling, storage
pre-cooling, storage and cold insulation transportation was about 19.9%, 2.7%, 8.57% and 19.11%.
and cold insulation transportation was about 19.9%, 2.7%, 8.57% and 19.11%. The total loss rate of the
The total loss rate of the energy consumption in cold insulation chain was about 18.87%.
energy consumption in cold insulation chain was about 18.87%.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 9 of 14

Table 2. The loss rate of the calculated and actual energy consumption in cold insulation chain.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Process Loss Rate (%) Total loss Rate (%)
Table 2. The loss
Ordinary rate of the calculated and actual
transportation 19.9 energy consumption in cold insulation chain.
Pre-coolingProcess 2.7 Rate (%)
Loss Total loss Rate (%)
18.87
Storage 8.57
Ordinary transportation 19.9
Cold insulation transportation 19.11
Pre-cooling 2.7
18.87
Storage 8.57
3.3. Energy Consumption Cold
Analysis in Coldtransportation
insulation Chain 19.11

As illustrated in Experiment III, the table grapes in cold chain were transported from Xingjiang
3.3. Energy Consumption Analysis in Cold Chain
uygur autonomous region to Guangzhou city in China. The total weight of the table grapes transported
was about 30,000 As illustrated
kg, and the in time
Experiment
of the III, the table
whole chaingrapes in cold10
was about chain
days.were
Thetransported from Xingjiang
energy consumption in
uygur autonomous region to Guangzhou city in China. The total weight of the table grapes
cold chain was mainly from the process of pre-cooling, storage and transportation.
transported was about 30,000 kg, and the time of the whole chain was about 10 days. The energy
The general small truck, the same as the experiment I, was employed to the ordinary transportation
consumption in cold chain was mainly from the process of pre-cooling, storage and transportation.
from the farmThe to the cold storage.
general small truck,The theone-way
same as transportation
the experiment distance
I, waswas about 6tokm.
employed the The total
ordinary
transportation frequency
transportation fromwas thealso
farmabout
to the20, and
cold the average
storage. weight
The one-way was about 1500
transportation kg was
distance every time.
about 6
The total transportation time was about
km. The total transportation 33.6was
frequency h. The
also total
aboutdiesel
20, andoil
theconsumption
average weightwas wasabout 97 L kg
about 1500 in
actual transportation.
every time. The total transportation time was about 33.6 h. The total diesel oil consumption was
about 97 Lcooling
The pressure in actualmethod,
transportation.
which forced the cool air flowing through the different pressure
The pressure cooling
on both sides of the packaged table method,
grapeswhich forced
in the coldthe cool airwas
storage, flowing through
applied the different
to the pre-cooling pressure
and
on both sides of the packaged table grapes in the cold storage, was applied
the storage. The power of the refrigeration plant in pre-cooling was about 56 kW, and the power to the pre-cooling and the
of
storage. The power of the refrigeration plant in pre-cooling was about 56 kW, and the power of the
the refrigeration plant in storage was also about 2 kW. The pre-cooling time was about 15 h, and the
refrigeration plant in storage was also about 2 kW. The pre-cooling time was about 15 h, and the
storage refrigeration time in storage was about 113 h.
storage refrigeration time in storage was about 113 h.
The heavy Therefrigeration truck, truck,
heavy refrigeration whosewhoseengine power
engine powerwaswasabout
about275275kW,kW,waswasused used toto the
the
refrigeration transportation from the cold storage to the market. The transportation
refrigeration transportation from the cold storage to the market. The transportation distance distance was about
was
4780 km. Theaboutaverage
4780 km.transportation time was about
The average transportation time 5wasdays, and
about the actual
5 days, and thedriving time was
actual driving about
time was
95 h. The total
aboutdiesel oil total
95 h. The consumption was about 3073
diesel oil consumption L in actual
was about 3073 Ltransportation.
in actual transportation.
The comparison
The comparison of the calculated
of the calculated and actual
and actual energy energy consumption
consumption in cold
in cold chainisisillustrated
chain illustrated in
in
Figure
Figure 5. The 5. The calculated
calculated energy consumption
energy consumption in the ordinary
in the ordinary transportation,
transportation, pre-cooling,
pre-cooling, storagestorage
and
and transportation
refrigeration refrigeration transportation was about
was about 2661.12 MJ,2661.12 MJ, 813.6
3024 MJ, 3024 MJ,
MJ 813.6 MJ andMJ,
and 94,050 94,050
andMJ, theand the
actual
actual energy consumption in the ordinary transportation, pre-cooling, storage and cold insulation
energy consumption in the ordinary transportation, pre-cooling, storage and cold insulation chain was
chain was about 3516.657 MJ, 4506.48 MJ, 1382.400 MJ and 111,403.977 MJ.
about 3516.657 MJ, 4506.48 MJ, 1382.400 MJ and 111,403.977 MJ.

Figure 5. Figure 5. Comparison

Comparison of the calculated
of the calculated and actual
and actual energyenergy consumption
consumption in cold
in cold chain.
chain.

The loss rate of the calculated and actual energy consumption in cold chain was presented in
The loss
Tablerate of the
3. The loss calculated and actual
rate of the energy energyinconsumption
consumption in cold chainpre-cooling,
the ordinary transportation, was presented in
storage
Table 3. The loss rate of the energy consumption in the ordinary transportation, pre-cooling, storage
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 10 of 14
and refrigeration transportation was about 24.33%, 32.9%, 41.15% and 15.58%. The total loss rate of
the energy consumption in cold chain was about 15.21%.
Sustainability
and refrigeration 2018, 10, x FOR was
transportation PEER about
REVIEW24.33%, 32.9%, 41.15% and 15.58%. The total loss rate of
10 of
the14
energy consumption
Table 3. The in cold chain
loss rate wascalculated
of the about 15.21%.
and actual energy consumption in cold chain.
and refrigeration transportation was about 24.33%, 32.9%, 41.15% and 15.58%. The total loss rate of
the energy consumption in cold chain was about 15.21%.
Table 3. The lossProcess Lossactual
rate of the calculated and Rateenergy
(%) consumption
Total Loss Rate (%)chain.
in cold
Ordinary
Table 3. transportation
The loss rate of the calculated24.33
and actual energy consumption in cold chain.
Process
Pre-cooling Loss32.9
Rate (%) Total Loss Rate (%)
Process Loss Rate (%) Total 15.21
Loss Rate (%)
Storage
Ordinary transportation 41.15
24.33
Ordinary
Pre-cooling transportation 32.9 24.33
Refrigeration transportation 15.58 15.21
Pre-cooling
Storage 41.15 32.9 15.21
Storage
Refrigeration transportation 15.5841.15
3.4. Energy Consumption Comparison Analysis
Refrigeration in Table Grapes
transportation Supply Chain
15.58
The different
3.4. Energy supply
Consumption chain has the
Comparison different
Analysis process
in Table and
Grapes cost to
Supply guarantee the quality and safety
Chain
3.4. Energy Consumption Comparison Analysis in Table Grapes Supply Chain
of the table grapes. The total energy consumption in the normal chain, cold insulation chain and cold
The different supply chain
The different
has the has
supply6.chain
different process
the different
and cost to
process and
guarantee
cost consumption
the quality and
to guarantee theinquality
safety
andchain
safety
chain is demonstrated in Figure The actual and calculated energy the cold
of the tableofgrapes. The total energy consumption in the normal chain, cold insulation chain and cold
was about 133,251.114 MJ and 107,871.12 MJ, and the actual and calculated energy consumptioncold
the table grapes. The total energy consumption in the normal chain, cold insulation chain and in
chain is demonstrated in Figure 6. The actual and calculated energy consumption in the cold chain
the normalchain
chainiswas
demonstrated in Figure
about 2535.335 MJ6.and
The2106
actual and calculated energy consumption in the cold chain
MJ.
was about 133,251.114 MJ and 107,871.12
was about 133,251.114 MJ, and MJ,
MJ and 107,871.12 the and
actual
theand calculated
actual energyenergy
and calculated consumption in the
consumption in
normal chainthe was
normal chain
about was about
2535.335 MJ2535.335
and 2106MJMJ.
and 2106 MJ.

Figure Figure 6. Comparison

6. Comparison of of the total energy consumption in table grapes supply chain.
Figure 6. Comparison of the
the total
total energy
energy consumption
consumption in table
in table grapes
grapes supply
supply chain.
chain.

3.5. Energy3.5. Energy Conversation

Conversation PotentialPotential Assessment
Assessment in Grapes
in Table
Table Table Grapes
SupplySupply
ChainChain
3.5. Energy Conversation Potential Assessment in Grapes Supply Chain
The energy conservation potential in the normal chain, cold insulation chain and cold chain
The energy
The energyconservation
conservationpotential
potentialinin the normal chain,
coldcold insulation chain and chain
cold chain
were assessed by combining withthethe normal chain,
energy consumption insulation chain
analysis. The and factor
energy cold were
in different
were assessed by
assessed bysupply combining
combining
chain with
with the
the energy
was described
energy consumption
in consumption
analysis.
analysis.
Figure 7 and the energyThe
The energy
energy factor
consumption
factor in different
in different
per unit supply
energy factor in
supply
chain chain
was was supply
described
different described
chain7in
in Figure Figure
and
was 7 and
the energy
illustrated the energy
inconsumption
Figure 8. consumption
per unit energyper unitinenergy
factor factor
different supplyin
different
chain wassupply chaininwas
illustrated illustrated
Figure 8. in Figure 8.

Figure 7. The energy factor in different supply chain.

Figure 7. The
Figure 7. The energy
energy factor
factor in
in different supply chain.
different supply chain.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2018,
2018, 10, 10,
2845x FOR PEER REVIEW 1111
of of
14 14

Figure
Figure 8. The
8. The energy
energy consumption
consumption perper unit
unit energy
energy factor
factor in different
in different supply
supply chain.
chain.

As presented in Figures 7 and 8, the energy factor in the normal chain was about 5.32 and the
As presented in Figures 7 and 8, the energy factor in the normal chain was about 5.32 and the
energy consumption per unit energy factor was about 0.944. The energy factor in the cold insulation
energy consumption per unit energy factor was about 0.944. The energy factor in the cold insulation
chain was about 18.85 and the energy consumption per unit energy factor was about 0.985. The
chain was about 18.85 and the energy consumption per unit energy factor was about 0.985. The energy
energy conversation potential in cold insulation chain was highest among the table grapes supply
conversation potential in cold insulation chain was highest among the table grapes supply chain mode.
chain mode. The energy factor in the cold chain was about 37.78 and the energy consumption per
The energy factor in the cold chain was about 37.78 and the energy consumption per unit energy factor
unit energy factor was about 0.935. The energy conversation potential in cold chain was smallest.
was about 0.935. The energy conversation potential in cold chain was smallest.

4. 4. Discussion
Discussion
According
According to tothethe energy
energy consumption
consumption analysis
analysis of ofthethe table
table grapes
grapes supply
supply chain,
chain, thethe energy
energy
consumption in the cold chain was highest because of
consumption in the cold chain was highest because of the complex refrigeration process and the complex refrigeration process and
long-distance
long-distance transportationininthe
transportation thecold
coldchain,
chain, and
and the
the energy
energyconsumption
consumptionininthe thenormal
normal chain
chainwas
lowest because of the simple and short distance
was lowest because of the simple and short distance transportation. transportation.
The
The different
different supply
supply chain
chain hashas thethe different
different process
process and andcostcostto to guarantee
guarantee thethe quality
quality andand safety
safety
of the table grapes. The more the processes were in supply
of the table grapes. The more the processes were in supply chain, the more devices were needed, chain, the more devices were needed,
thus
thus making
making thethe more
more energy
energy consumption.The
consumption. Thecold
coldchain
chainshould
shouldkeep keepthe the table
table grapes
grapes be be stored
stored at
at aa low temperature all
low temperature all the
the time
time by by thetherefrigeration
refrigerationplants plantsininthe thewhole
wholechain,
chain,whilewhilethethe cold
cold
insulation chain was just refrigeration storage in the pre-cooling
insulation chain was just refrigeration storage in the pre-cooling and storage, and the normal chain and storage, and the normal chain
waswas transported
transported in in
thethe ambient
ambient environment.
environment.
According
According to theto the
energyenergy consumption
consumption analysis
analysis resultsresults in thegrapes
in the table table supply
grapeschain,
supply thechain,
energythe
energy consumption in actual supply chain were all higher
consumption in actual supply chain were all higher than that the calculated value. The results may than that the calculated value. The
beresults
due to maythat bethedue to thatdevices
external the external devices energy
or operation or operation energy consumption
consumption in supply chain. in supply chain. For
For example,
example, the lighting, the loading and unloading operation energy
the lighting, the loading and unloading operation energy consumption in pre-cooling and storage, consumption in pre-cooling and
storage, the air conditioner used in summer day in the truck,
the air conditioner used in summer day in the truck, and also the heavy traffic in the actual and also the heavy traffic in the actual
transportation
transportation [36].[36].
As presented in in
As presented Figures
Figures 7 and
7 and 8, the
8, the energy
energy factor
factor in in
thethe normal
normal chain
chain waswas lower
lower thanthan that
that in in
thethe
cold insulation chain and cold chain, while the energy consumption
cold insulation chain and cold chain, while the energy consumption per unit energy factor was higher per unit energy factor was
higher
than that than
in thethat
cold inchain
the cold
andchain
lowerand than lower
that than
in thethatcoldininsulation
the cold insulation
chain. Thechain.reason Themayreason
due may
to
due to the simple process and short distance transportation
the simple process and short distance transportation in the normal chain. The energy conversation in the normal chain. The energy
conversation
potential in normal potential
chain in wasnormal chainsmall.
relatively was relatively small.
The energy factor in the cold insulation chainchain
The energy factor in the cold insulation was lower
was lower than thatthaninthat
the in
coldthechain
coldand chain and than
higher higher
than that in normal chain, while the energy consumption per
that in normal chain, while the energy consumption per unit energy factor was highest. The energy unit energy factor was highest. The
energy conversation
conversation potential in potential in cold insulation
cold insulation chain was
chain was highest. Thehighest.
reasonThe mayreason
due tomaythat due
theretowas
thatalso
there
was also no any energy conservation measures were applied in
no any energy conservation measures were applied in the cold insulation chain, and also the old truck the cold insulation chain, and also
the old truck was used in the investigated ordinary
was used in the investigated ordinary and cold insulation transportation [29–31].and cold insulation transportation [29–31].
The
The energy
energy factor
factor in in
thethe cold
cold chain
chain was was highest,
highest, while
while thethe energy
energy consumption
consumption perper unit
unit energy
energy
factor was lowest. The energy conversation potential in cold
factor was lowest. The energy conversation potential in cold chain was smallest. The reason maychain was smallest. The reason may due
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 12 of 14

due to the complex refrigeration process and long-distance transportation, and also the advanced
refrigeration measures, such as the refrigeration plant and truck, were applied in cold chain.
However, the cold chain was still the optimal supply chain for the table grapes because of the
characteristics of the longest storage shelf life and the lowest quality decay even though the cold
chain has a smallest conservation potential according to the result of the energy conversation potential
assessment. The energy consumption in the cold chain would also be further reduced by adopting the
more advanced refrigeration and preservation technologies [37–39].
The results show that the energy conservation potential assessment method could provide a
unified method for evaluating the energy conservation potential in different supply chain mode of
table grapes, increase the energy transparency in table grapes supply chain, and finally help the
manager take the appropriate energy conservation measures to reduce the energy consumption in
different supply chain mode.

5. Conclusions
This paper proposes an energy conservation potential assessment method for the supply chain
management of table grapes in order to increase the energy consumption transparency and help
the manager take the appropriate energy conservation measures to reduce the energy consumption.
The energy consumption and conservation potential assessment in three kinds of the supply chain
mode, which are the normal chain, the cold insulation chain and the cold chain, were realized by
integrating the actual energy consumption investigated with the unified energy consumption per unit
energy factor. The energy consumption comparison and the energy conservation potential in actual
table grapes supply chain were comprehensively analyzed and assessed.
The different supply chain has the different process and cost to guarantee the quality and safety
of the table grapes. The more the processes were in supply chain, the more devices were needed,
thus making the more energy consumption. The energy consumption in the cold chain, whose actual
value was about 133,251.114 MJ and calculated value was about 107,871.12 MJ, was highest, and the
energy consumption in the normal chain, whose actual value was about 2535.335 MJ and calculated
value was about 2106 MJ, was lowest. The total loss rate of the energy consumption in normal chain,
cold insulation chain and cold chain was about 16.93%, 18.87% and 15.21%, respectively.
The energy conversation potential in cold insulation chain, which was about 0.985, was the highest
and that in cold chain, which was about 0.935, was the smallest. However, the cold chain was still the
optimal supply chain for the table grapes because of the characteristics of the longest storage shelf life
and the lowest quality decay, and the cold chain energy consumption would be further reduced by
adopting the more advanced refrigeration and preservation technologies.
In this study, the comprehensive analysis of the energy consumption comparison and the
energy conservation potential in actual table grapes supply chain indicate that the proposed energy
conservation potential assessment method could provide a unified method for evaluating the energy
conservation potential in different supply chain mode of table grapes.
The proposed energy conservation potential assessment method could be extended for other
supply chain application. It is also possible to integrate the others energy consumption and
conservation potential assessment methods such as the life cycle energy consumption into the energy
conservation potential for supply chain management.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and Validation, X.X. and X.Z. (Xiaoshuan Zhang); Methodology, X.X.;
Investigation, X.Z. (Xu Zhang) and W.M.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation and Writing—Review & Editing,
X.X. and X.Z. (Xu Zhang); X.X.; Supervision, Z.F. and X.Z. (Xiaoshuan Zhang); Project Administration and Funding
Acquisition, X.Z. (Xiaoshuan Zhang).
Funding: This research is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFE0111200) from
Ministry of Science and Technology, the China Agriculture Research System (CARS-30) from Ministry of
Agriculture of China and the postdoctoral project funded by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M630223,
20181T110160) and the opening project from key laboratory of agricultural informatization standardization of
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (China Agricultural University) (AIS2018-02).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 13 of 14

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Deng, L.; Wang, R.; Dong, T.; Feng, J.; Mu, W. Assessing the table grape supply chain performance in
China—A value chain analysis perspective. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 1129–1145. [CrossRef]
2. Xiao, X.; Li, Z.; Matetic, M.; Bakaric, M.B.; Zhang, X. Energy-Efficient sensing method for table grapes cold
chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 152, 77–87. [CrossRef]
3. Litskas, V.D.; Irakleous, T.; Tzortzakis, N.; Stavrinides, M.C. Determining the carbon footprint of indigenous
and introduced grape varieties through Life Cycle Assessment using the island of Cyprus as a case study.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 418–425. [CrossRef]
4. Feliziani, E.; Romanazzi, G.; Smilanick, J.L. Application of low concentrations of ozone during the cold
storage of table grapes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2014, 93, 38–48. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, X.; He, Q.; Matetic, M.; Jemric, T.; Zhang, X. Development and evaluation on a wireless
multi-gas-sensors system for improving traceability and transparency of table grape cold chain.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 135, 195–207. [CrossRef]
6. Kucukvar, M.; Samadi, H. Linking national food production to global supply chain impacts for the
energy-climate challenge: The cases of the EU-27 and Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 395–408. [CrossRef]
7. Jin, M.; Granda-Marulanda, N.A.; Down, I. The impact of carbon policies on supply chain design and
logistics of a major retailer. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 453–461. [CrossRef]
8. Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I. Issue on supply chain of renewable energy. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 76,
774–780. [CrossRef]
9. Heidari, M.; Omid, M. Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable
productions in Iran. Energy 2011, 36, 220–225. [CrossRef]
10. Beske, P.; Land, A.; Seuring, S. Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in
the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 152, 131–143. [CrossRef]
11. Ma, C.; Xiao, X.; Zhu, Z.; Vlad, L.B.; Zhang, X. Contour Diagram-Based Evaluation on Logistics Stability of
Table Grapes under Variable Temperature. J. Food Process. Eng. 2016, 39, 391–399. [CrossRef]
12. Xu, W.; Li, D.; Fu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Yu, X.; Shang, W. Extending the shelf life of Victoria table grapes
by high permeability and fungicide packaging at room temperature. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2013, 26, 43–50.
[CrossRef]
13. Lin, B.; Du, Y.; Liang, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Yang, J. Effect of chitosan coating on respiratory behavior and
quality of stored litchi under ambient temperature. J. Food Eng. 2011, 102, 94–99. [CrossRef]
14. Huang, Y.; Wang, B.; Zhou, S.; Wu, J.; Lei, G.; Li, P. Sun, P. Modeling and experimental study on combination
of foam and variable density multilayer insulation for cryogen storage. Energy 2017, 123, 487–498. [CrossRef]
15. Li, Y.-C.M.; Chen, Y.-H.A. Assessing the thermal performance of three cold energy storage materials with
low eutectic temperature for food cold chain. Energy 2016, 115, 238–256. [CrossRef]
16. Xiao, X.; He, Q.; Li, Z.; Antoce, A.O.; Zhang, X. Improving traceability and transparency of table grapes cold
chain logistics by integrating WSN and correlation analysis. Food Control 2017, 73, 1556–1563. [CrossRef]
17. Qi, L.; Xu, M.; Fu, Z.; Mira, T.; Zhang, X. C 2 SLDS: A WSN-based perishable food shelf-life prediction and
LSFO strategy decision support system in cold chain logistics. Food Control 2014, 38, 19–29. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, X.; Cai, H.; Florig, H.K. Energy-Saving implications from supply chain improvement: An exploratory
study on China’s consumer goods retail system. Energy Policy 2016, 95, 411–420. [CrossRef]
19. Brandenburg, M.; Govindan, K.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain
management: Developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 233, 299–312. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, Y.; He, L.; Guan, Y.; Lu, H.; Li, J. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and water-energy
optimization for shale gas supply chain planning based on multi-level approach: Case study in Barnett,
Marcellus, Fayetteville, and Haynesville shales. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 134, 382–398. [CrossRef]
21. Shen, B.; Ding, X.; Chen, L.; Chan, H.L. Low carbon supply chain with energy consumption constraints:
Case studies from China’s textile industry and simple analytical model. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2017, 22,
258–269. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2845 14 of 14

22. McBrien, M.; Serrenho, A.C.; Allwood, J.M. Potential for energy savings by heat recovery in an integrated
steel supply chain. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 103, 592–606. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, H.; Rutherford, D. Assessment of Energy Consumption by Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers and Impact
of Improving the Energy Efficiency on Natural Gas Supply Chain. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 40–47. [CrossRef]
24. Vanek, F.; Sun, Y. Transportation versus perishability in life cycle energy consumption: A case study of the
temperature-controlled food product supply chain. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2008, 13, 383–391.
[CrossRef]
25. Lin, B.; Xie, X. Energy conservation potential in China’s petroleum refining industry: Evidence and policy
implications. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 91, 377–386. [CrossRef]
26. Boharb, A.; Allouhi, A.; Saidur, R.; Kousksou, T.; Jamil, A. Energy conservation potential of an energy audit
within the pulp and paper industry in Morocco. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 569–581. [CrossRef]
27. Wu, X.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Zheng, C.; Gao, X.; Cen, K. Cost and potential of energy conservation
and collaborative pollutant reduction in the iron and steel industry in China. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 171–183.
[CrossRef]
28. Zhang, H.C.; Li, H. An energy factor based systematic approach to energy-saving product design. CIRP Ann.
Manuf. Technol. 2010, 59, 183–186. [CrossRef]
29. Feng, H.-Q.; Liu, D.-J.; Wang, Y.-C. Study on Gray Relation Theory Application in Energy consuming
Evaluation of Refining Unit. Chem. Eng. Mach. 2013, 6, 713–718.
30. Xie, X. Establishment of evaluation index of complete energy consumption and application. Pet. Refin. Eng.
2012, 9, 49–53.
31. Finn, P.; Fitzpatrick, C.; Connolly, D.; Leahy, M.; Relihan, L. Facilitation of renewable electricity using price
based appliance control in Ireland’s electricity market. Energy 2011, 36, 2952–2960. [CrossRef]
32. Saad, A.; Das, T.; Rana, D.; Sharma, A.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Lal, K. Energy auditing of a maize-wheat-
greengram cropping system under conventional and conservation agriculture in irrigated north-western
Indo-Gangetic Plains. Energy 2016, 116, 293–305. [CrossRef]
33. Zackrisson, M.; Avellán, L.; Orlenius, J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles—Critical issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1519–1529. [CrossRef]
34. Li, T.; Liu, Z.-C.; Zhang, H.-C.; Jiang, Q.-H. Environmental emissions and energy consumptions assessment
of a diesel engine from the life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 7–12. [CrossRef]
35. Feng, C.; Gao, X.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Comparative life cycle environmental assessment of flue gas
desulphurization technologies in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 68, 81–92. [CrossRef]
36. Powell, J.; González-Gil, A.; Palacin, R. Experimental assessment of the energy consumption of urban rail
vehicles during stabling hours: Influence of ambient temperature. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 66, 541–547.
[CrossRef]
37. Evans, J.; Foster, A.; Huet, J.-M.; Reinholdt, L.; Fikiin, K.; Zilio, C.; Houska, M.; Landfeld, A.; Bond, C.;
Scheurs, M.; et al. Specific energy consumption values for various refrigerated food cold stores. Energy Build.
2014, 74, 141–151. [CrossRef]
38. Nunes, J.; Neves, D.; Gaspar, P.D.; Silva, P.D.; Andrade, L.P. Predictive tool of energy performance of cold
storage in agrifood industries: The Portuguese case study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 88, 758–767.
[CrossRef]
39. Kuo, J.-C.; Chen, M.-C. Developing an advanced multi-temperature joint distribution system for the food
cold chain. Food Control 2010, 21, 559–566. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).