1 Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Department of Industrial Ecology, Leiden University, Einsteinweg
2, 2333 CC Leiden, The Netherlands2 Department of Earth, Environment and Life Sciences (DISTAV), University of Genoa, Corso Europa 26,
16132 Genoa, Italy3 Evodevo Srl, Via dei Castelli Romani 12/A, 00071 Pomezia, Rome, Italy4 Longline Environment Ltd, 88 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7RS, UK5 DCEA, Fac. Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Qta Torre, 2829-516 Monte de Caparica,
Portugal6 Aqua Soc. Agr. s.r.l., Calata Porto Turistico 129 – 16033, Lavagna, Italy
1.1. Background processes: Monoculture and IMTA........................................................31.1.1. Hatcheries and Nurseries.......................................................................................3
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................30ANNEX I. Inventory table.........................................................................................................31ANNEX II. Foreground Processes..............................................................................................54
GLOSSARY
(*) Copied from the LCA Handbook (Guinée et al., 2002). Defined in accordance with the definitions given in the ISO 1404X series of standards, although not necessarily according to the letter.
(**) Copied from the LCA Handbook (Guinée et al., 2002). Defined for the context of this document.
(***) Copied from the LCA Handbook (Guinée et al., 2002). Defined for the context of this document.
Background system/process: a system or process for which secondary data, viz. databases, public references, estimated data based on input-output analysis, are used in an LCA.
Conditioning of oysters: Process in which oysters are prepared at sea before final harvest. It includes among others, fattening to the right weight and quality control of the final product.
Cut-off problem*: The problem of having to quantitatively estimate the environmental interventions associated with flows for which no readily accessible data are available.
ii
Cut-off process**: Processes for which no inventory data is readily accessible. These processes are not followed from cradle to grave.
Downstream system/processes**: waste treatment unit processes or processes after the aquaculture farm gate.
Fattening of oysters: Process in which oysters are grown at sea to gain weight before final conditioning, harvest and retail.
Foreground processes: a system or process for which primary, site-specific data are used in an LCA, for whatever reason.
Impact Assessment/Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): an LCA phase that serves to aggregate the inventory data in support of interpretation.
Lantern nets***: Special vertical cages used in this case for the oysters culture. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) result**: Outcome of a life cycle inventory analysis that catalogues
the flows crossing the system boundary and provides the starting point for life cycle impact assessment. (Source: ISO 14040)
Longlines***: Set of ropes placed in parallel that serve to place the lantern nets for oysters culture.
Moorning system: Net of ropes, chains and weights (e.g. cement blocks) that serve to attach the fish cages, longlines and lanternets to the bottom of the sea. This is the systems that holds the offshore infrastructure in place.
Unit process*: the smallest portion of a product system for which data are collected in an LCA.
Upstream processes**: unit process in the supply chain of the aquaculture farm.
iii
1. INVENTORY
The flow diagram in the main manuscript shows the background and foreground processes for which data was collected as described in the following sections. In addition Figure S.1 shows the layout of the farm cages (monoculture system) and the lanters nets in the up-scaled IMTA system.
Figure S.1. AQUA’s farm layout including the lantern nets for oysters growth (IMTA sub-system) and the cages for fish growth (monoculture system). This layout corresponds to the up-scaled IMTA system. In the pilot of oyster the lantern nets were placed west of the cages.
1.1. Background processes: Monoculture and IMTA
1.1.1. Hatcheries and Nurseries
Hatcheries and nurseries for monoculture and IMTA systems are not included in the LCAs at the moment as no data for these processes were directly available through the SME. Therefore, juveniles from hatcheries or Nurseries are cut-off from the systems.
1.1.2. Feed Production
Feed production has been modelled using literature and adopting assumptions about feed compositions, feed ingredients production and transport of ingredients. As a consequence, the feed production data presented here is based on secondary data for sea bream feeds. Data from available literature sources has been collected using the protocol for horizontal averaging of LCA secondary data by Henriksson et al. (2013b).
Feed production for open sea aquaculture in Europe, consists basically of three types of processes (Figure S.2):
1) Agricultural processes to produce crop based ingredients2) Wild fisheries to produce fish oil and fish meal
4
3) Feed mills processing all ingredients into pellet type of feeds.
Below we describe the details for sea bream.
Production of Fish feed for Sea Bream
Agricultural processes refer to the production of the crop based ingredients in fish feed. These processes can be divided in two main groups: farming and crop milling processes. During the farming, the actual grain, cereal or crop is produced. During the milling the crop is transformed into a form in which it can be more easily included in the fish feed, for instance, flour, meal or oil.
Transport of all ingredients between activities from farm to mills is included whenever possible, assuming an hypothetical feed mill to be situated in the North of Italy. The transport distances are calculated using google maps and an online calculator for sea distances1.
Most agricultural processes from different origins have been included in the sea bream feed. According to what has been reported in literature sources (Ramalho Ribeiro et al. 2015; Aubin et al. 2009; Venou et al. 2009) as well as on the labels of commercial feeds used by the SME (further described in Table 1), the crop based ingredients included in the model are listed and discussed below:
Feed Mill
Fish Meal
Fish oil
Protein Concentrates
/Gluten
Fish reduction
Wild fisheries
fish offalby-catch
Minerals and nutrients production
Vitamin A/D3 Mn/Fe/Cu/Zn/I/Se/P/Na/Ca
OilMeal/cake
Crops
Industrial fish
Fish processing
Fish/shellfish for human consumption
Agricultural production(Farming processes)
Vitamines ProductionCrops mills
Flour
Crops
One ton of fish feed at EU mill
Transport of feed to farms
Aquaculture farm
One ton of feed at farm
Fish for human consumption
Mortalities and/or unqualified fish
Figure S.2. General feed production flow diagram. Bold arrows represent flows that are included in the feed models.
The production of corn gluten from the US has been modelled according to the dataset for Maize, wet-milling of the SEAT project (Henriksson et al. 2014). Farming of Maize in the US is also taken from this reference. Wet-milling of Maize results in three products: corn gluten, ethanol and corn gluten feed. Allocation is based on mass-based partitioning resulting in 7.7% of the impacts allocated to corn gluten, 53% to ethanol and 33% to corn gluten feed. Corn gluten is subsequently transported overseas over an average distance of 7800 km (trans-oceanic freight) and over land by about 2000 km (Lorry >16t) to the feed mill.
Wheat flour from Europe and the US, at feed mill: We have created a process that uses a mix of wheat grains farmed in the main wheat producing countries of the EU and in the US (i.e. ¼ of input from each country). The farming processes are modelled in ecoinvent v2.2 and are: - wheat IP, at feed mill from Switzerland ID 30- wheat grains conventional, Saxony-Anhalt, at farm ID 6958- wheat grains conventional, Barrois, at farm ID 6966- wheat grains, from the US at farm ID 6972The grains are transported to the crop mill over an average distance of 20000 km by trans-oceanic freight (‘transport, transoceanic freight ship’ ID1968) and 300 km by Lorry >16t (‘transport, lorry >16t, fleet average’ ID 1943). For the milling process it is assumed that 280 kWh of electricity (medium voltage EU grid) is used per ton of wheat processed. The milling process yields about 76% of wheat flour and 24% of wheat bran and zero losses are assumed. To allocate impacts between the bran and the flour we use partitioning based on the mass principle, therefore, 76% of the impacts are allocated to the flour. Further transport of wheat flour to the feed mill is not included.
Peas, From France at feed mill: For peas production we use the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘protein peas conventional, Barrois, at farm’ ID 6963. We assume peas are produced in France and they are transported directly into the feed mill over land for an average distance of 1000 km. No milling process is included for peas as they appear to be used as an ingredient without any processing.
Soybean meal, from Brazil at feed mill: Soybeans are assumed to be originating from Brazil as this country is the world’s major exporter of soybeans in the world, according to FAO statistical data for 20132. The farming and milling of soybeans is modelled from various data sources from literature as shown in the supplementary information of Henriksson et al. (2015). The farming data is normalized to one hectare. It is further assumed that the soybeans are transported to a port in Brazil by means of a Lorry >16t over an average distance of 2500 km and by trans-oceanic freight to the EU for 10000 km and further 300 km by truck to the crop mill where they are further processed. For milling of soybeans we use again the data as shown in the supplementary material of Henriksson et al. (2015). This process yields soybean oil and soybean meal. For the allocation of the impacts of the process we again use mass-based partitioning. As a result 81% of the impacts are allocated to soybean meal and 19% to soybean oil. The soybean meal is subsequently transported over an average distance of 1500 km by truck to the feed mill.
Wheat Gluten, at feed mill: This process has been cut-off as the available datasets do not include the production of gluten from wheat as a source of protein for fish feeds. Only one source reported the input of wheat gluten from France in feed (Ramalho Ribeiro et al. 2015).
For wild fisheries no inventory data on by-catch or offal from wild fisheries is included, as well as no data on wild fish stocks used is included (Figure S.2). The model only includes the diesel combusted in vessels for the delivery of industrial fish, i.e. fish dedicated to produce fishmeal and
fish oil, at harbour. About 16 kg of diesel are used per ton of landed fish on average (Avadi et al. 2014). It has been assumed that fisheries of Anchovy in Peru should be modelled for our LCAs. According to FAO statistical data, Peru is the main exporter of fish oil on average from 1992 to 20133 and has the largest dedicated fleet targeting a single species in the world4. FAO data also reports Norway, The Netherlands and Denmark to be the main importers of fish oil over the same period another reason to assume that feed produce in Northern EU can contain Peruvian fish oil and meal from anchovy. Fuel consumption has been shown to be the main source of impacts for the wild fisheries of anchovy in Peru (Fréon et al. 2014). Moreover, wild fisheries of other sources of fish oil and mill from dedicated fish such as krill, blue whiting, Atlantic herring, among others, should also be included in the future in this LCAs.
For fish reduction to produce fish meal and fish oil (co-produced during fish reduction), we have included the industrial process in Peru (Figure S.2). The production of fishmeal by Norway, Denmark and Iceland, which are in fact the main producers of fishmeal according to FAO data, is not included as no inventory data was available. This is a point for future improvement of the current LCAs.
The following data sources were adopted for fish reduction: Fishmeal, from Peru at feed mill:
Dataset created for the SEAT project and reported in Henriksson et al. (2014). It is assumed that the fishmeal is averagely transported over 11700 km by transoceanic freight to an EU port and over land to the feed mill (Lorry >16t) by about 1500 km.
Fish oil, from Peru at feed mill: Dataset created for the SEAT project and reported in Henriksson et al. (2014). It is assumed that the fishmeal is transported over 11700 km by transoceanic freight to an EU port and over land to the feed mill (Lorry >16t) by about 1500 km.
These two ingredients are co-produced in the same process. Thus we allocate among them by using physical partitioning based on mass allocation. The impacts for fishmeal are about 82% and for fish oil about 18%.
For the feed mill process, a “theoretical” feed mill in the North of Italy has been modelled. We use the location of the mill to calculate distances for the transport of the previously described ingredients to the feed mill, as outlined per ingredient above.
The method followed to delimit the ingredients list and their origin was the following: first, a list of ingredients based on the SME’s actual feed labels was made, as shown in Table 1. From this list a short list was drafted composing of the most common (groups of) ingredients. The following groups of ingredients were drafted: fish derived ingredients present in all types of feed, including fingerling feeds; peas-, wheat-, and soybean-based ingredients; “other” ingredients mostly other sources of protein such as krill meal, guar protein and Lysine. Secondly, using this initial list of ingredients, a literature review was conducted and three literature sources were used to quantify the actual amount of ingredients per ton of feed (Table 1). We applied the protocol of Henriksson et al. (2013b) and used the weighted average value as final input for the LCA feed model as well as the distribution and phi as an indicator of variation for the input of each ingredient per ton of feed (Table 1).
For the feed mill, we did not include the use of energy or water in the industrial process.
Additional data were included for two other types of ingredients reported on feed labels of SME: Feed minerals:
We have horizontally averaged the primary data (Henriksson et al. 2013a) for the amount of minerals per ton of feed (Table 2). The production of all input minerals comes from the ecoinvent v2.2. database.
Vitamin premix:Additional vitamin pre-mixes are sometimes added into feeds. We only included the amount in
the feeds as shown in Table 1 but cut-off production as no inventory data was available.
This model for sea bass and sea bream feed production is a good estimate for the Italian. However, including some lower-mass and more locally sourced ingredients, such as fishmeal from European countries and ingredients in the group of “other” ingredients, could play an important role in the environmental impacts of producing feed such as, for example, krill meal production that can have impacts on biodiversity and biotic resource depletion5. Also, including water and energy use at the feed mills might be of importance for impacts such as global warming and freshwater use.
5 See for example: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/fisheries/krill-fisheries-and-sustainability 8
Table 1. Sea bream feed composition from SME feeds labels and from literature, as well as, horizontal averaging value per ingredient used in the inventory of the LCAs (Last column). Ingredients included are highlighted in green.
Composition according to labels or kg for literature sources per ton of feedFish meal x x x x x 300 420 506 450 (Lognormal - 0.271)Fish oil x x x x x 140 80 89 90.4 (Lognormal - 0.324)Corn/Maize gluten x x x x x 116 116 (No uncertainty)Pea protein x 90 90 (No uncertainty)Pea starch xPea xWheat meal xWheat gluten x x x 40 40 (Cut-off)
Wheat (wheat flour in model)x x x
220 (assumed wheat flour)
220 208 (Lognormal - 0.124)
Soy bean protein concentrate x xSoy bean meal/cake x x x x 140 150 200 182 (Lognormal - 0.213)Soy bean oil xSoybeansSunflower meal x x xRapeseed oil x x xRapeseed meal xGuar protein xKrill meal xLysine x
Vitamin Premixx x x x x 10 50 3 16.3 (Lognormal - 1.03;
Cut-off)Feed minerals x x x x x 1000 (No uncertainty)
19
Table 2. Primary data sources and data for mineral content per kg of sea bream and sea bass feed for three commercial feed brands used at two Mediterranean SME.
copper, at regional storage[RER] 3.67E-06 kg L(0.581) 1.00E-06 5.00E-06 5.00E-06
potassium chloride, as K2O, at regional storehouse[RER] 6.67E-07 kg L(1.18) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.00E-06
calcium chloride, CaCl2, at plant[RER] 9.00E-07 kg L(0.76) 1.20E-06 1.50E-06 0.00E+00
iron sulphate, at plant[RER] 9.70E-05 kg L(1.04) 0.00E+00 2.50E-04 4.00E-05
selenium, at plant[RER] 1.00E-07 kg L(1.18) 0.00E+00 3.00E-07 0.00E+00
manganese, at regional storage[RER] 7.70E-06 kg L(0.821) 8.00E-06 0.00E+00 1.50E-05
zinc oxide, at plant[RER] 6.00E-05 kg L(0.427) 5.00E-05 4.00E-05 9.00E-05
manganese oxide (Mn2O3), at plant[CN] 6.70E-06 kg L(1.18) 0.00E+00 2.00E-05 0.00E+00
OutputFeed minerals[RER, 2012] 1 kg 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00
19
1.1.3. Boats transport
Unfortunately, appropriate inventory datasets on fishing boats used for European aquaculture were not ready available from literature or databases. Therefore, fishing boats are modelled adopting the ecoinvent v2.2 approach for LCAs of transport systems. Ecoinvent distinguishes four life cycle stages for a boat and we adopted these four elements as far as possible depending on data availability by the SME. There is ample room for improvement in the resulting transport model, which is highlighted below together with the generic boat transport modelling assumptions (see foreground processes for specific assumptions).
The manufacturing of the boat itself was included, when data was available. We have accounted for all bulk constituting materials of the boat but excluded the engine. For the materials, a certain percentage of the boat’s weight was assumed to correspond to the amount of a specific material delivered by corresponding ecoinvent processes. For instance, for boats made of glass fibre the weight of the boat has been linked to the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘Glass fibre reinforced plastic, polyester resin, hand lay-up, at plant’ (ID 1816). For the total energy needed for manufacturing a boat, the ecoinvent v2.2 assumption for the manufacturing of a barge was adopted: total manufacturing energy is equal to 50 % of the cumulative energy of the used materials. Of this value, 90 % corresponds to heavy fuel oil burned in industrial furnace, and 10 % corresponds to electricity from the local electricity mix. Transport of the boat from its manufacturing plant to the SME was excluded.
For the operation of the boats the fuel combusted per boat per process undertaken at the SME is included. The total distance travelled by the boat(s) and the % of use of the boat for a specific activity/process was determined in order to split the total boat’s fuel use over the processes of the SME. In some cases, the % was based on calculated or reported total km per process. In other cases, the % was based on the amount of fuel burned. Depending on the fuel type, different ecoinvent v2.2 processes were linked to the operation of the boat. For diesel boats, ‘diesel at regional storage for a European average’ (ID 1543) was adopted and for petrol boats ‘Petrol, low-sulphur at regional storage for European average’ (ID 1567) was taken. For conversions from volume to kg we used densities of 0.755 kg/liter for petrol6 and 0.885 kg/liter7 for diesel. The CO2, CH4, N2O, CO, NOx and NMVOC emissions from combustion of fuel in boat engines were calculated using IPCC emission factors for non-road mobile sources and machinery in Europe (IPCC, 1997). The emission factors are: 3.14 kg CO2/kg fuel, 0.0002 kg CH4/kg fuel, 0.0013 kg N2O/kg fuel, 0.011 kg CO/kg fuel, 0.042 kg NOx/kg fuel and 0.0047 kg NMVOC/kg fuel (Table 3). No uncertainty data has been included for these environmental flows.
For maintenance of the boat the use of lubricant oil was included, if possible per boat and per process. The lubricant oil production was taken from ecoinvent v2.2 (section 3.1.1.7); transport of the oil to the company has not been included. Also, the disposal or post farm treatment of the oil has not been. The SME recycles this oil.
Finally, the disposal of the boat has been excluded.
Table 3. Emission factors for fuel combustion of different fuels and sources.Boats Land transport and other equipment
6 Wikipedia Petrol: finished marketable gasoline is traded with a standard reference density of 0.755kg/l7 Diesel Oil at 15 centigrade degrees. http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/conversions/substances/oil.php
3.14 kg CO2/kg fuel 0.0002 kg CH4/kg fuel 0.0013 kg N2O/kg fuel 0.011 kg CO/kg fuel 0.042 kg NOx/kg fuel 0.0047 kg NMVOC/kg fuel
Ecoinvent v2.2 process: 3.5 - 12 t EU average fleet
3.16 kg CO2/kg fuel 0.0002 kg CH4/kg fuel 0.00025 kg N2O/kg fuel 0.0075 kg CO/kg fuel 0.032 kg NOx/kg fuel 0.0024 kg NMVOC/kg fuel
Petrol IPCC (1997): Table 1-49 Part 2
3.20 kg CO2/kg fuel 0.0017 kg CH4/kg fuel 0.00008 kg N2O/kg fuel 1 kg CO/kg fuel 0.0097 kg NOx/kg fuel 0.034 kg NMVOC/kg fuel
Not reported by any SME
1.1.4. Electricity production and energy mixes
For Italy the electricity mix from ecoinvent v2.2 has been used. Specifically, processes requiring electricity are connected to the Italian medium voltage grid (process ID 653). In this dataset, representing the year 2004, about 70 % of the electricity mix is provided from fossil energy sources and the rest mainly originates from hydropower and other renewable sources. The 2004 mix is very similar to the one for 2012, in which about 68 % of the electricity is provided from fossil sources and hydro power supplies about 15% (IEA, 2012). Therefore the mix used in ecoinvent was not updated. The medium voltage grid unit process includes losses in the grid too.
1.1.5. Fuels (diesel and petrol)
Two types of fuels were reported: diesel and petrol. In both cases, the ecoinvent datasets were used and they represent average European processes. Both types of fuels are mostly used in boats, vehicles and other equipment (e.g. generators and feeding cannons).
For diesel, we have used the following ecoinvent v2.2 processes: Boats:
Diesel at regional storage for a European average (ID 1543): the dataset refers to the distribution of petroleum products to the final consumer
Land equipment and land transport: Diesel, low-sulphur, at regional storage for a European average (ID 1548)
For petrol, we have used the following ecoinvent v2.2 processes: Boats, land equipment and land transport:
Petrol, low-sulphur at regional storage for European average (ID 1567): accounts for all necessary transports.
These processes deliver the fuels in kg and most SME data was reported in litres. For conversions from volume to kg we use 0.755 kg/liter of petrol8 and for diesel 0.885 kg/liter9.
8 Wikipedia Petrol: finished marketable gasoline is traded with a standard reference density of 0.755kg/l9 Diesel Oil at 15 centigrade degrees. http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/conversions/substances/oil.php
Finally emissions from fuel combustion have been calculated using the emission factors shown in Table 3.
1.1.6. Lubricant oil production
Lubricant oil is mainly used by big machines or boats at the farms. We have used the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘lubricating oil, at plant’ ID 416. This process includes the complete upstream production chain of 1 kg of lubricant oil. Litres of oil were converted to kg adopting a density of 0.86 kg/l10. This dataset has a large uncertainty according to ecoinvent. No disposal of fuel oil has been included in the LCAs as the oil is recycled, and we cut-off the recycling processes. Therefore, the impacts of the treatment of the oil are consider outside of the systems of the SME and basically considered as part of the impacts of the recycling facilities not included in the LCAs.
1.1.7. Infrastructure materials
Infrastructure materials refer to the materials used in building the farm infrastructure. In the case of monoculture production, the farm’s infrastructure consists mainly of the cages (polyethylene pipes and nets) and mooring system. Also, materials used in parts replaced during maintenance and other type of smaller infrastructure e.g. containers or packaging of the fish in the processing units are considered as infrastructure materials.
The SME has reported the infrastructure used for each of its processes. Based on this we have calculated the amounts of materials required. For example, chains used in mooring systems are translated into kg of steel, by means of the specifications of the chains and its lifetime.
Furthermore, the farm processes using the materials (e.g. for construction, maintenance and growth processes) are linked to the upstream processes providing the materials. These upstream processes were adopted from the ecoinvent v2.2 database. They generally correspond to average European production or consumption mixes. The main materials and processes used are:
Polyethylene, HDPE, granulate, at plant ID 1829 Polypropylene, granulate, at plant ID 1834 Polystyrene, general purpose, GPPS, at plant ID 1836 Nylon 6, at plant ID 1821 Steel, converter, low-alloyed, at plant ID 1150 Glass fibre reinforced plastic, polyester resin, hand lay-up, at plant, ID 1816
Ecoinvent v2.2 accounts for most of the upstream production processes of these materials. For most of the materials this database includes the environmental impacts of:
The raw material extraction usually mining activities e.g. iron and coal for steel The pre-treatment and primary production of the material, e.g. agglomeration and blast
furnaces for steel production The secondary processes/treatment to make materials available e.g. hot rolling for steel Transport of materials among different stages
10 Form http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/engine-oil/ 13
Transport of infrastructure elements (e.g. nets, ropes, chains, etc.) from the manufacturing plant (e.g. plant making ropes out of plastic) to the farm is not included. Moreover, energy for manufacturing the infrastructure parts (e.g. for transforming plastics into nets, ropes or steel into mooring parts), was excluded too.
1.1.8. Chemicals
Chemicals are modelled according to the specific inventory (see foreground processes below), mostly for cleaning chemicals used at the fish processing plants.
1.1.9. Chemo-therapeutants
To capture the impacts due to the use of chemo-therapeutants, two processes should particularly be modelled: the production of the chemical (medicated feeds), and the impacts of its use (emissions and impact of active ingredients).
For the production of the chemicals, different chemicals are used according to the species to be treated. For the case of bass and bream production in the Mediterranean, no upstream production processes for substances such as oxytetracycline and flumiquine could be included. Therefore, the production of medicated feeds including active chemicals are only included at the foreground systems.
For emissions (impacts of use), of the active ingredients are calculated using the concentrations of active ingredients in medicated feeds as reported by the SME (see foreground processes below).
Moreover, no impacts of chemo-therapeutants are reported because corresponding characterisation factors were lacking. Characterisation factors are available for some chemicals applied in pond aquaculture in Asia (see e.g. Rico and Van den Brink 2014) showing, for example, that about 80% of Oxytetracycline (also used in bass and bream) is degraded in the sediments and that only 5 to 10% remains in the sediments. However, these factors were modelled for pond aquaculture in Asia and cannot be directly applied to the case of open sea aquaculture in Europe.
1.1.10. Municipal solid waste treatment
The solid wastes of farms mainly originate from the growth process, maintenance of the farm and processing of fish. Plastic feed bags constitute one of the main wastes for the growth processes. In the maintenance phase, wastes are generated mainly related to the repair and change of infrastructure parts. During the processing of fish, solid wastes such as guts, blood and fish scales are generated.
For wastes from the growth and maintenance, different processes from the econinvent v2.2 have been used. Depending on the type of waste and on the type of regional treatment reported by the SME we have added treatment by landfilling or by incineration (see foreground processes below). The main processes used from the ecoinvent v2.2 database are:
Disposal, inert material, 0 % water, to sanitary landfill ID 2221: corresponds to wastes with no degradability in 100 years disposed in a controlled landfilled.
Disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.3 % water, to sanitary landfill ID 2230: wastes of 100 % mixture of plastics with a degradability of 1 % to a controlled landfill.
Disposal, polystyrene, 0.2 % water, to sanitary landfill ID 2234: 100 % polystyrene landfilling with 1 % degradability in 100 years.
14
Disposal, polyethylene terephtalate, 0.2 % water, to sanitary landfill ID 2231: waste corresponds to 100 % PET disposed in landfill with 1 % degradability in 100 years.
Disposal, steel, 0 % water, to municipal incineration ID 2123: one kg of this waste produces 0.52 kg of slag and 0 kg of residues. In ecoinvent v2.2 an incineration plant is assumed to be operational for 40 years. As ecoinvent v2.2 does not provide data for landfilling of steel, similar assumptions have been made in the case where steel is landfilled.
Disposal, polypropylene, 15.9 % water, to sanitary landfill ID 2233: Inventoried waste contains 100 % PP. Overall degradability of waste during 100 years is 1 %.
Some of the company wastes are recycled. For example, lubricant oils from the boats and machines are recycled. Recycled flows are not considered part of the systems of the SME and they are considered as impacts of the recycling or treatment companies. In most of the cases these flows are treated in the LCAs as goods with an economic value of zero or directly as wastes (see foreground processes below).
1.1.11. Municipal wastewater treatment
Wastewater is generated at the fish processing plants. Therefore, the ecoinvent municipal wastewater treatment process is added. We have assumed a medium wastewater treatment plant (capacity class 3) i.e. 10000 to 50000 per capita equivalents PCE11. This plant includes pre-treatment and primary treatment, as well as treatment of sludge for agriculture and to incineration. The environmental burdens of the latter two are all attributed to the treatment of wastewater.
In ecoinvent v2.2 this process is named ‘treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 3’, ID 2277.
1.1.12. Municipal drinking water
This process provides tap water input to two types of activities at the farm: 1) ice making (for those farms where ice is made onsite), and 2) fish processing. We have used the ecoinvent v2.2 process named ‘tap water, at user’, ID 2288. This process includes some rough calculations for the provision of 1 kg of drinkable water from different sources such as river, lake and ground water too.
1.2. Foreground processes: monoculture
Annex II shows the foreground unit processes and their flows.
Boat transport used in various processesUnfortunately, appropriate inventory datasets on fishing boats used for European
aquaculture were not ready available from literature or databases. Therefore, fishing boats are modelled adopting the ecoinvent v2.2 approach for LCAs of transport systems. Ecoinvent distinguishes four life cycle stages for a boat and we adopted these four elements as far as possible depending on data availability and relevance for the SME. There is ample room for improvement in the resulting transport model.
The manufacturing of the boat itself was included, when data was available. We have accounted for all bulk constituting materials of the boat but excluded the engine. For the materials, a certain percentage of the boat’s weight was assumed to correspond to the amount
11 One PCE equates to a load of 60 grams BOD in raw sewage per day, which is the typical BOD load generated by one person.
15
of a specific material delivered by corresponding ecoinvent processes. For instance, for boats made of glass fibre the weight of the boat has been linked to the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘Glass fibre reinforced plastic, polyester resin, hand lay-up, at plant’ (ID 1816). For the total energy needed for manufacturing a boat, the ecoinvent v2.2 assumption for the manufacturing of a barge was adopted: total manufacturing energy is equal to 50 % of the cumulative energy of the used materials. Of this value, 90 % corresponds to heavy fuel oil burned in industrial furnace, and 10 % corresponds to electricity from the local electricity mix (for each SME, unless specified differently). Transport of the boat from its manufacturing plant to the SME was excluded.
For the operation of the boats the fuel combusted per boat per process undertaken at the SME is included. The total distance travelled by the boat(s) and the % of use of the boat for a specific activity/process was determined in order to split the total boat’s fuel use over the processes of the SME. In some cases, the % was based on calculated or reported total km per process. In other cases, the % was based on the amount of fuel burned. Depending on the fuel type, different ecoinvent v2.2 processes were linked to the operation of the boat. For diesel boats, ‘diesel at regional storage for a European average’ (ID 1543) was adopted and for petrol boats ‘Petrol, low-sulphur at regional storage for European average’ (ID 1567) was taken. For conversions from volume to kg we used densities of 0.755 kg/liter for petrol12 and 0.885 kg/liter13 for diesel. The CO2, CH4, N2O, CO, NOx and NMVOC emissions from combustion of fuel in boat engines were calculated using IPCC emission factors for non-road mobile sources and machinery in Europe (IPCC, 1997). The emission factors are: 3.14 kg CO2/kg fuel, 0.0002 kg CH4/kg fuel, 0.0013 kg N2O/kg fuel, 0.011 kg CO/kg fuel, 0.042 kg NOx/kg fuel and 0.0047 kg NMVOC/kg fuel (Table 3). No uncertainty data has been included for these environmental flows.
For maintenance of the boat the use of lubricant oil was included, if possible per boat and per process. The lubricant oil production was taken from ecoinvent v2.2 (section 3.1.1.7); transport of the oil to the companies has not been included. Also, the disposal or post farm treatment of the oil has not been included as most companies upcycle or recycle this oil.
Finally, the disposal of the boat has been excluded.
There are three boats used by AQUA. Specific data for the boats fuel and lubricant use is presented in Table 4.
Boat 1 is made of glass fibre and weighs 5 tons. For its operation a total of 5720 litres/yr of diesel is used (i.e. 5020 kg/yr). A yearly distance of 5148 km/yr was reported for this boat, leading to 0.98 kg/km of diesel use. For maintenance, 30 litres/yr of lubricant oil are used, i.e. 25.8 kg/yr. These totals per year are divided to each individual process using the % of use of the boat for certain activities. The recycling of the oil has been cut-off as AQUA gives this oil to a recycling company and we have assumed that the economic value of the disposed oil is zero, therefore this is not included as part of the maintenance process. In this way, it is assumed that the impacts of recycling are not due to AQUA’s operations but to the recycling process itself.
For Boat 2 90% of its total weight (10.8 tons) is considered as steel. For its operation a total of 5670 litres/yr of diesel is used (i.e. 5045 kg/yr). A yearly distance of 1458 km/yr was reported for this boat, leading to 3.5 kg/km of diesel use. For maintenance, 40 litres/yr of lubricant oil were included (i.e. 34.4 kg/yr). The oil recycling is again cut-off from the system.
12 Wikipedia Petrol: finished marketable gasoline is traded with a standard reference density of 0.755kg/l13 Diesel Oil at 15 centigrade degrees. http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/conversions/substances/oil.php
Finally, for the rubber boat (gommone), we have assumed no inputs of materials and no lubricant oil use. For the operation we have included 1150 litres/yr of petrol 100% accounted in the maintenance process.
Table 4. Process input data for boats use and maintenance in AQUA for the monoculture system
Processes
Boat 1(% of use)
Boat 1 Use (vkm/yr)
Boat 1 Fuel use(kg/yr)
Boat 1 Lubricant
oil use (kg/yr)
Boat 2(% of use)
Boat 2 Use (vkm/yr)
Boat 2 Fuel use(kg/yr)
Boat 2 Lubricant oil
use(kg/yr)
1. Farm Construction na na na na na na na na
2. Fry production na na na na na na na na3. Fry transport to land na na na na na na na na
4. Fry transport to cages na na na na 0.02 34.7 120 0.8
Infrastructure materials used in various processesTable 5 shows the amounts of materials linked to the different processes of AQUA as they are
used to construct, replace infrastructure such as mooring parts, nets and cages, harvest and pack the fish. For maintenance a certain percentage of the replaced materials has been assumed to be disposed to landfill (corresponding to regional solid waste treatment) and a certain percentage has been assumed to be lost to sea, as reported by AQUA. The calculations for translating mooring parts to component materials such as steel, polyethylene, nylon, etc. are provided upon request. Moreover, during the maintenance, three types of waste materials are lost to the sea. We have created a new process called “Disposal, Open Sea” which has as inputs these three types of wastes and no output at the moment, since no data are available allowing estimation of corresponding environmental emissions to sea water. Therefore, these three flows are cut-off from the system.
Table 5. Materials used, disposed and lost to the sea. These amounts derive from the specifications of the parts of infrastructure used in AQUA for construction, maintenance, harvest and fish processing in the monoculture system
Process
Total amount of material (kg)
Discarded to waste (kg)
Lost to Sea (kg) Unit
Ecoinvent material Notes
Construction
6762 NA NA kg Polyethylene and HDPE/yr
Polyethylene HDPE
No disposal of construction materials
6433 NA NA kg polypropylene/yr
Polypropylene granulate
No disposal of construction materials
5700 NA NA kg steel/yr Steel converter low-alloy
No disposal of construction materials
1028 NA NA kg polystyrene/yr General purpose GPPS
No disposal of construction materials
6972 NA NA kg HDPE/yr Polyethylene HDPE
No disposal of construction materials
1019 NA NA kg dinema and Nylon 6 No disposal of construction
17
Nylon/yr materials
632 NA NA kg printed polyethylene/yr
Polyethylene HDPE
No disposal of construction materials
Maintenance
16 14 2 kg polypropylene and HDPE/yr
Polyethylene HDPE
% of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
2 2 0.1 kg nylon/yr Nylon 6 % of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
394 356 38 kg steel/yr Steel converter low-alloy
% of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
48 48 0 kg polystyrene/yr General purpose GPPS
% of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
30 30 0 kg printed polyethylene/yr
Polyethylene HDPE
% of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
317 317 0 kg dinema and Nylon/yr Nylon 6 % of lost parts to sea reported
by AQUA
0 0.0 0 kg HDPE/yr Polyethylene HDPE
% of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
0 0.0 0 kg polypropylene/yr
Polypropylene granulate
% of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
Harvest
25 0 Kg polypropylene/yr
Polypropylene granulate
One container disposed in 8 years of operation thus no disposal included
37 37 kg nylon/yr Nylon 6 One new and disposed fishing net in 13 years
Processing
262008 - - kg polystyrene/yr General purpose GPPS
Disposal of polystyrene not added to AQUAs system as this process happens at the consumer and this is out of the system boundaries (cradle to gate analysis)
31 - - kg latex/yr Latex
Corresponds to other wastes too, not only latex gloves but no estimate of domestic waste is available, therefore no disposal included
Compressed air used in various processesCompressed air is used for different activities in AQUA. We used the ecoinvent v2.2 process
‘Compressed air, average generation, <30kW, 10 bar gauge at compressor’, ID 8223. This process includes the compressor, electricity for the operation, and the maintenance i.e. lubricant oil use and disposal of the compressor, in order to produce 1 m3 of compressed air at the compressor. The only adaptation made was the use of the Italian electricity mix as the source of electricity used. The total electricity demand per m3 (i.e. 0.77 KWh/m3) was defined in such a way that it matches the yearly amount of electricity reported by AQUA, i.e. 2040 kWh/m3, and the total amount of compressed air used at the farm i.e. 2640 m3/yr, calculated by AQUA using the number of dives, the number of tanks per dive, the tanks volume, all in a year.
For the calculation of the m3 of compressed air required per process, the % of use in different activities reported by AQUA was used, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Amount of m3 of compressed air required per AQUA process in 2012 in the monoculture system
PROCESSES % of per year Compressed air (m3/yr)
18
1. Farm Construction na na
2. Fry production na na
3. Fry transport to land na na
4. Fry transport to cages 0.01 26.4
5. Fish grow-out 0.2 528
6. Maintenance 0.65 1716
7. Disease treatment na na
8. Harvest 0.14 369.6
9. Ice production na na
10. Processing na na
11. Transport of fish na na
Total 1 2640
Forklift use in various processesThe forklift has been modelled as an electric vehicle, as it is powered with a battery and
electricity is consumed for its functioning. The model is built on the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘transport, passenger car, electric, LiMn2O4, certified electricity’, ID 11762. For this model we have adapted the electricity use to be supplied by the Italian grid (section 2.1.5). We also disconnected the impacts related with road infrastructure as this vehicle works only within AQUA facilities and surroundings. Finally, we calculated the amount of vehicle kilometres (i.e. km driven by one “full” vehicle) and the amount of electricity use per process using the data reported by AQUA. The total yearly distance travelled by the forklift is 192 km and the total yearly electricity use is 4200 kWh/yr as reported by AQUA. These two totals were divided among the processes at AQUA, using the fractions of time estimated by the company during which the forklift is used for each process. The results are reported in Table 7.
Table 7. Amount of vehicle kilometres of “forklift” required for each AQUA process in 2012 in the monoculture system
Processes % of use per year Electricity use per process (Kwh/yr)
Vehicle kilometers per process (vkm/yr)
1. Farm Construction na na na2. Fry production na na na3. Fry transport to land na na na4. Fry transport to cages na na na5. Fish grow-out 0.7 2940 134.46. Maintenance 0.05 210 9.67. Disease treatment na na na8. Harvest 0.1 420 19.29. Ice production na na na10. Processing na na na11. Transport of fish 0.15 630 28.8Total 1 4200 192
Farm constructionThe construction process of AQUA includes a building where processing, maintenance and
administration of the farm take place. The process ‘building, multi-storey’, ID 549 from ecoinvent v2.2 has been used to include the life cycle of the building. The building volume is calculated using the land area reported by AQUA and assuming a 2 stories building of 2 meters per storey. This process also includes all material requirements for the mooring system, for 12 cages and for 8 big
19
nets and 4 small nets (Table 5). Moreover, the land area used for the land facilities is added into this process.
Fry production at hatcheryNo data was available for this process therefore this process is cut-off from the LCA.
Land transport of fry: form hatchery to AQUA’s land facilitiesFor transport of fry from the hatchery to the land facilities of AQUA a truck is used. This process
has been modelled by using the ecoinvent v2.2 process named ‘transport, lorry 3.5-16t, fleet average’, ID 1941. It refers to the whole life cycle of a truck, including road infrastructure, maintenance and disposal. The amount of tkm driven by the truck for transporting the fry (i.e 33699 tkm) is calculated using the total kilometres reported by AQUA (9560 km/yr) and the assumption that the truck is equipped with 3 containers14, each of a cubic meter filled with water and a weight of 175 kg per tank15.
Sea transport of fry: from land facilities to cages at AQUAFor this process boat 2 was reported to be used. See Table 4 and description of boat transport
model, for the data included in this process. Moreover, the use of oxygen was reported. For this the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘oxygen, liquid, at plant’, ID 301 was adopted. The density of liquid oxygen at 300 bar i.e. 0.3927 kg/litre16 was used to convert the amount from litre to kg. Also, compressed air was reported as an input for diver tanks and here we included the electricity used for the compressor as described above (Table 6). Finally, a mortality of fry of about 1% was modelled for this process and dead fry was added as an environmental output of the process. This flow does not contribute to any specific impact category as yet.
Feed transport to farmThe feed mill for the current feed model is assumed to be located in Verona (Italy); the transport
of feed from the mill to the farm was also included. The ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘transport, lorry >16t, fleet average’, ID 1943 is used for modelling this transport process. From this process only the operation of the truck has been added. About 0.22 parts of the truck is needed for transporting 1 ton over 1km. This calculation is based on the total amount of km ride by the truck in order to deliver the feed (65 trips * 500 km i.e. two ways to the feed mill), as well as the total amount of tons of feed transported in a year i.e.589. From the total of 65 feed deliveries per year reported by AQUA, about 20% are from abroad, however, we have assumed that 100% of the deliveries come from within Italy. The total amount of kilometres for a single trip was calculated using Google Maps17 and correspond to about 250 km. This lead to a transport demand per ton of feed of 250tkm (amount of tons transported by one vehicle for a certain amounts of kilometres expressed as tkm).
Fish management and grow-outGrow-out of fish at AQUA has been defined mainly as fish feeding. The output of the
construction process (1 farm unit), a cycle of maintenance and a cycle of disease treatment are linked to this process too. On top of these inputs, boat transport from boat 1 and 2 are added, as well as compressed air and forklift use mostly for feeding purposes. See previous sections for all details on these input flows to the growth process.
14 Revised from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x3980e/x3980e0b.htm#bm11 15 Revised from: http://www.aquaculture-com.net/AquaTech.htm#Transportsysteme 16 Revised from: http://www.wolframalpha.com/17 Search from Lavagna Italy to Verona Italy.
The main input to this process corresponds to fish feed. Feed as reported on 2012 corresponds to 589 tons per year in order to produce 240 tons of Sea bream and Bass.
Table 8 shows the production data as reported by AQUA for 2012. For the final implementation of production data we added uncertainty in production data (Henriksson et al. 2013b) and included in the weighted mean the data for 2013 and 2014 too (see manuscript). Three flows of fish production include uncertainty estimates, i.e. fry at cages, feed use and life grown fish at cages. Also, three flows include uncertainty estimates at the processing of fish: whole boxed fish at plant, gutted packed fish at plant and guts at plant (see manuscript). Fry density is 170 fry/m3. Adults are cultured at average 8 kg/m3 (maximum of 15 kg/m3).
Table 8. Growth data for AQUA, based on 2012 production dataset provided by AQUA.Parameters Value Unit (per year)Base year 2012 YearFry at cages 850000 FryFry mortality 5000 (mostly during transport) FryTotal feed 589 TonsAdult mortality 255000 (30% of seeded fry) FishHarvest 240 TonsFCR 2.45
The main resource used associated to growth of fish is the following: the occupation of sea and ocean. This resource has been added as an environmental extension in this process for AQUA. It corresponds to 25000 m2/yr of actual sea occupation, which is less than the licensed area that is 200000 m2.
With respect to emissions from this process, the loss of some fish has been reported by AQUA and this has been accounted as part of the environmental outputs of AQUA’s grow-out process. The loss of fish was reported as 30% of the seeded fry per year and they are reported as an environmental extension to marine water.
Emissions from growth (faeces, urine and excess feed) have been added in this process too and correspond to a growing cycle of fish, i.e. 22 months considered in the FARM model, further scaled to a year. Nitrogen and phosphorus emissions to sea water, 62.4 tons and 2.4 tons respectively, have been added and have an effect on eutrophication.
The disposal of feed bags has been included too in the grow-out process using the ecoinvent process ‘disposal of inert material 0% water to landfill’ (section 2.1.11). We assumed that each plastic bag weights 50 grams and calculated 1180 kg/yr of plastics disposed to landfilling as reported by AQUA.
Maintenance of the plant (offshore and on-shore)This process includes all materials and equipment used needed for: control of nets and fish;
maintenance of mooring systems; net replacements (and recovery from sea floor); immersion and submersion of cages. As described in the infrastructure materials section above, elements of the infrastructure offshore are replaced every year as well as a certain % is lost to sea.
The materials used in the elements replaced during maintenance and disposal of the removed elements per year are accounted for. The impacts of the materials of the elements loss to sea are cut-off, as the impacts of elements such as ropes, ties, chains and handles lost to sea is very difficult to estimate. The amount of material in these elements i.e steel, Nylon and Polyethylene is reported as a waste (i.e. 38.2, 0.12 and 1.62 kg per year respectively) which is further causing an impact at sea which is the cut-off part of the system.
21
Also this process accounts for the compressed air used for divers, forklift use and boat 1 and 2 transport as described above. Moreover, the petrol burned in the rubber boat is all accounted in this process as it is only used for maintenance purposes at the farm.
Oil change for boats and vehicles is not included as the oil is recycled and it is assumed the impacts correspond to the recycling company, therefore this is cut-off.
The output of maintenance is a virtual cycle of maintenance per year at AQUA which is linked to the growth process.
Disease treatment: included in fish management and grow outAQUA reported the use of medicated feed containing oxytetracycline and flumiquine, based on
an average use over the past 13 years by the company. As mentioned in the background processes – Chemo-therapeutants, the production of medicated feeds including the active ingredients are not included in the analysis because of lacking inventory data, therefore this is cut-off from the analysis. The maximum possible emissions of active ingredients to sea water, are calculated using the concentrations of these chemicals in the medicated feeds. For oxytetracycline, the use of 41750 kg/yr of anprociclina and 500 kg/yr of oxiter (Italian commercial names of oxytetracycline based antibiotics) containing 3.75% and 7.3% respectively of oxytetracycline was reported. This leads to 123 kg/yr for Oxytetracycline potentially emitted to sea water. For flumiquine the use of 3000 kg of colifarm (Italian commercial name of a flumequine based antibiotic) containing 0.6% of active ingredient lead to 1.38kg/yr of possible emitted flumiquine to sea water. We include these emissions as potential emissions from disease treatment. The impacts of these emissions are not included in the calculations as there are no characterisation factors for these substances, in this location and for this type of aquaculture i.e. open sea cages. In summary, no upstream impacts of production of medicated feeds are included and no impacts of the calculated emissions are included. The emissions are reported as ‘non characterized flows’ (see inventory table Annex I).
Fish HarvestThis process includes the materials used and disposed as reported in Table 5. Also compressed
air, boat transport and forklift use are included as described in the sections above. An additional input of ice is included and a model for ice production is described in process 9. It was estimated that half of the total ice production is dedicated to harvesting the fish. This is 120 tons of ice per year. The output of the process delivers dead fish at plant (which die of thermal shock during harvest) and transport to the processing plant is also included in this process i.e. moving containers with dead fish by forklift to the plant.
Ice ProductionFor the production of ice the life cycle of the ice making machine was considered. Four processes
were modelled: 1) the manufacturing of the machine itself; 2) the operation using electricity; 3) the maintenance of the machine and 4) an estimated tap water input to produce the ice. For the manufacturing of the machine, it was assumed that the machine was 100% made of stainless steel and that it has a life span of 12 year. The process ’building machine’, ID 550 from ecoinvent v2.2 was copied and adapted to represent the ice making machine from AQUA. This module, describes a fictitious machine made 100% of steel which was adapted and replaced by stainless steel (ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘chromium steel 18/8, at plant’, ID 1072). The energy consumption for the manufacturing process is assumed to be the same as the energy consumption for the assembly of a car. The transport for delivering the parts of the machine to the assembly plant is modelled using the estimated weight of AQUAs ice making machine i.e. 230 kg and the distances from ecoinvent v2.2 transport for rail i.e. 200 km by an average European train and truck i.e. 135 km using the average European lorry fleet > 16t.
22
For the operation, the electricity reported by AQUA i.e. 20160 kWh were linked to the Italian energy mix (see background processes – Electricity production and energy mixes).
Tap water was estimated as there is no water meter at AQUA. It was estimated that one litre of freshwater is needed for both harvesting and processing a kilo of fish. Thus, there are as much kilos of water used (if one considers 1 liter of water = 1 kg) as fish produced, in the case of the production in 2012 we considered 240 tons of water as input for ice production.
Finally, for the maintenance of the machine, the use of R134a refrigerant is reported. Refrigerant R404 is used as a proxy. The ecoinvent v2.2 process used was ‘refrigerant R134a, at plant’, ID 6017.
Processing of fishThe processing of fish mostly refers to the cleaning and packaging of fish, as well as the gutting,
filleting and packing of a small fraction of the production every year i.e about 4%.
In this process various inputs are included: the use of freshwater for cleaning and processing the fish and the processing plant; the resulting sewage treatment of the wastewater from the processing and cleaning; the polystyrene of the boxes for packing the whole fish; the chemicals for cleaning the plant; ice for packing the fish; the latex gloves used by personnel at the plant and the electricity for refrigerators and tagging machines.
For the water used at the processing plant we applied the estimate reported by Islam et al. (2004) i.e a total effluent of 13.4 litres/kg of fish from fish processing plants in North Carolina. This estimate leads to a total of 3216 m3 water use per ton of fish at AQUA. This data point was connected to the sewage treatment (‘treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 3’ ID 2277) and to the drinking water supply processes in ecoinvent v2.2. The World Bank Group (2007) suggest in their Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for fish processing an achievable water use for whitefish processing of 5 – 11 m3/ton fish. Therefore, the estimate we use for AQUA could be considered on the high end of the range.
For the polystyrene boxes, we only considered the input of the material as shown in Table 5. As shown, the disposal of polystyrene is not included in the system as this is attributed to the consumer of the fish downstream the gate of AQUA.
Chemicals used in processing for cleaning up the plant: Included in fish processingSeveral chemicals were reported by AQUA: Sanimed sanificante, Sirpav HC, CIF gel con
candeggina, Cloro tablet, Delladet and Del-kal matic. All of these chemicals have been included in the analysis, except the last two because of a lack inventory data. For included chemicals, only the production of the chemical itself is included when available from the ecoinvent or another database, therefore, no transport or energy inputs of chemicals or manufacturing are included.
For Sanimed sanificante, the reported composition was quaternary ammonia salts 0.5%, Diclosan 1%. The process ‘esterquat, tallow, at plant’, ID 2000 from ecoinvent v2.2 was used to model the quaternary ammonia salts and a density of 786 kg/m3 was used to convert m3 to kg. This process is directly linked to process 10 i.e. fish processing. The diclosan component could not be included due to lacking data.
For Sirpav HC, a liquid superconcentrated detergent, a composition of ammonia 0.3% was found in the specifications of the product. In this case we used the ecoinvent v2.2 process ‘ammonia, liquid, at regional storehouse’, ID 246. This process represents the production of ammonia from steam reforming and partial oxidation of heavy fuel oil. A 0.3% of the total of the product was included and a density similar to water was assumed for this product to convert m3 to kg. This leads to 0.06 kg/yr as 20 litres per year of product used are reported.
23
For CIF oxygel clean a new process that includes the main chemical inputs to this product18 was created. It includes:
‘hydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant’, ID 284 ‘ethoxylated alcohols, unspecified, at plant’, ID 5906For each chemical it was assumed that 3% of the solution corresponds to each chemical input in
kilograms per litre of solution. Therefore, 0.03 kg of each chemical was used to produce 0.001 m 3 of product. The total use of this product reported by AQUA was 0.008 m3/yr.
Finally, Delladet is similarly modelled as CIF oxygel clean. A new process was made based on the product description19. It includes:
10% of ‘ammonium chloride, at plant’, ID 7238 10% of ‘ethoxylated alcohols, unspecified, at plant’, ID 5901 3% of ‘sodium carbonate from ammonium chloride production, at plant’, ID 7246A water-based solution was assumed as the product description reports a relative density of 1.05
kg/m3.
The input of ice corresponds to the other half of the total production of ice as described in process 9 above. Therefore, 120 tons of ice per year are used in packing the fish.
The use of latex gloves has been reported and included in the processing of fish too (See Table5).
The input of electricity for the tagging machine and the refrigerator. Although the dimensions of the refrigerator were reported, no other specifications were available. Thus manufacturing, maintenance and disposal of the machine are not accounted for in the LCA. The electricity which is the main input to the operation of the machine is included, i.e. 2800 kWh/yr and for the tagging machine 576 kWh/yr are both connected to the Italian modelled electricity mix (See background processes– Electricity and energy mixes).
Finally, the treatment of guts from the fraction of fish that is gutted at AQUA has been cut-off as this treatment consists of fertilizer production by another company. By not allocating the impacts of this treatment to AQUA it is assumed that economic value of the guts is zero and that the upcycling company is responsible for the downstream emissions of treating the guts. The three main outputs of fish processing, i.e. whole boxed fish, gutted fish and guts include uncertainty estimates described in the main manuscript.
Cut-offs
Table 9 shows the flows that have been cut-off from the system.Table 9. Economic flows not followed to the boundary from AQUA’s monoculture system
Flow not followed to the boundary Foreground process Cut-off reasonFry Sea Bass and Sea Bream, at hatchery[IT, 2012]
Fry production at hatchery[2] No inventory data available
Steel, maintenance parts to sea[IT, 2012] Maintenance[6]No impact assessment and inventory data available
Nylon, maintenance parts to sea[IT, 2012] Maintenance[6]No impact assessment and inventory data available
Polyethylene, maintenance parts to sea[IT, 2012] Maintenance[6] No impact assessment and inventory data
availablemedicated feed (Oxytetracycline based), at farm[IT, 2012] Disease treatment[7]
No impact assessment and inventory data available
medicated feed (Flumequine based), at farm[IT, 2012] Disease treatment[7]
No impact assessment and inventory data available
Wheat Gluten, at Italy feed mill[IT, 2012] Feed production No inventory data available
Vitamin premix[IT, 2012] Feed production No inventory data available
Allocation
Allocation is needed for two processes of the AQUA monoculture production system. The first one is fish processing and the second one is retail to local market.
For fish processing whole boxed and gutted fish are co-produced with the guts. We have treated boxed fish and gutted fish as two different products and the guts as a good with a price of 0 EUR/kg. Therefore, three goods (despite guts having a price of zero) are being produced in this process. For allocation we have now defined two methods:
Partitioning 1: Physical mass-partitioning, which consists of allocating the environmental impacts of the system using the weight of the co-products using the weighted averages for the flows as shown in Table 10, for Henriksson et al. (2013).
Partitioning 2: Economic allocation, which consists of using the proceeds (monetary value (€/kg) x mass (kg)) of the co-products as basis for allocation. This method is the DEFAULT one used for allocation when not using uncertainty calculations. The prices used are calculated as an average price of the prices reported by AQUA for weight ranges of fish, which are marginally different. Whole boxed fish price is 11 EUR/kg and gutted fish price is 14 EUR/kg. Guts are given a price of 0 EUR/kg (they are upcycled) and therefore, nothing is allocated to them. Table 10 shows the allocation factors for both methods.
For the results including uncertainty calculations we have used the protocol by Mendoza Beltran et al. (2015) and used a methodological preference for both economic and physical allocation of 50%, thus equal methodological preference in this process only (Table 10).
Table 10. Allocation factors for the fish processing unit process of AQUA
Co-ProductFISH PROCESSING Price (EUR/kg)
Protocol Henriksson et al. (2013) (kg)
Proceeds (EUR)
Economic allocatio
n
Physical allocation
Mendoza Beltran et.al (2015)
Methodological preference
Whole boxed fish 11 242000 2662000 0.95 0.958 50*
Gutted fish 14 9360 131040 0.05 0.037 50*
Guts 0 1380 0 0 0.005 50*
Total 2793040*Both physical and economic allocations get a 50% methodological preference for the uncertainty calculations
Inventory ResultsAnnex I contains the complete inventory table for the monoculture showing the emissions and
resource used per kg of fish (i.e. 0.96 kg of whole packed and 0.04 kg of gutted packed sea bass and sea bream) for AQUA’s production at farm gate, including local van retail of fish.
1.3. Foreground processes: IMTA
25
The up-scaled IMTA system is composed of the monoculture part of the system, which has been implemented as described above, and the IMTA sub-system which consists of oyster grown in lantern nets (Figure S.1). In this section we describe the implementation of the data for the IMTA sub-system, as well as the merging of the growth process of oyster with the growth of fish. Annex II shows the foreground unit processes and their flows.
Boat transportThe model and efficiency (fuel use per km) of boat 1 and boat 2 are kept the same as in the
monoculture model. The only adaptation made for the IMTA system consists in adding fuel and lubricant oil used for the IMTA activities. This requires readjusting the time spent on each activity for both boats per process. Boat 1 is used for oysters’ management and grow out (site surveillance) and boat 2 is used for maintenance of the lantern nets, transport of oysters from harbour to lantern nets and vice versa. The adapted fractions of time per process per boat are calculated as: the fractions between fuel use per process and the total fuel used per boat including IMTA and monoculture activities. These fractions change with respect to monoculture, as the same boats are used in additional activities related to the IMTA sub-system. Nonetheless, fuel use remains equal per boat per process for monoculture activities, as fuel use is the starting point for calculating the total fuel use in the IMTA system and the fractions of time of use per activity. Table 11 shows the use and maintenance parameters used in the models for boats of AQUA in the IMTA system. To derive the new total km per yr for each boat in the IMTA system we use:
(total monoculture,km/yr * total fuel use IMTA,kg/yr) / total fuel use monoculture, kg/yr.
Table 11. Process input data for boats use and maintenance in AQUA. Manufacture of boats is described in the monoculture section and disposal is not included. Numbers in red are different with respect to monoculture values.
Processes
Boat 1(% of use)
Boat 1 Use (vkm/yr)
Boat 1 Fuel use(kg/yr)
Boat 1 Lubricant
oil use (kg/yr)
Boat 2(% of use)
Boat 2 Use (vkm/yr)
Boat 2 Fuel use(kg/yr)
Boat 2 Lubricant oil
use(kg/yr)
1. Farm Construction na na na na na na na na
2. Fry production na na na na na na na na3. Fry transport to land na na na na na na na na
4. Fry transport to cages na na na na 0.02 35 120 0.8
11. Transport of fish na na na na na na na na12. oysters seed production na na na na na na na na
13. oysters seed transport from producer to AQUA
na na na na na na na na
14. oysters seed transport from land facilities to longline
na na na na 0.002 3 11.9 0.08
15. oysters management and grow out
0.04 218 212 1.1 na na na na
16. oysters transport na na na na 0.005 7 24 0.16
26
from longline to harbour17. oysters transport by land to La Spezia na na na na na na na na
Total 1 5366 5232 27.1 1 1458 5045 34.4
Farm constructionThe process for construction of the farm remained as in the monoculture process, but there are
additions made for the materials used for 160 lantern nets used for the oysters’ growth. The components of the nets are mostly made of nylon and HDPE. Therefore, the input of materials into the construction process increased for these two materials (Table 12).
Maintenance of the plant (offshore and on-shore)In addition to the maintenance activities of the monoculture production, for the IMTA sub-
system we have added to this process the expected materials used in maintenance of the lantern nets (i.e. 40 new lantern nets per year), the amounts of materials disposed to land filling corresponding to the removed lantern nets and the amounts of materials lost to sea given loss of lantern nets, mostly due to possible bad weather, was estimated around 10% of total lanterns. Also, materials related to the use of handles and ropes for maintenance of the mooring, are added to this process.
Table 12 shows the final amounts added to the monoculture values, for the IMTA system maintenance. Also amounts of materials disposed and lost at sea are included. The later flows are further cut-off, as was consideration made for the monoculture system (difficult to estimate the impact of lost infrastructure elements at sea e.g. steel parts lost at sea).
Table 12. Materials used, disposed and lost to the sea during different processes. These amounts derive from the specifications of the parts of infrastructure used in AQUA for construction and maintenance of the IMTA sub-system (oysters).
Process
Total amount
of material
(kg)
Discarded to waste
(kg)
Lost at
Sea (kg)
Unit Ecoinvent material Notes
Construction
20 0 NA kg HDPE/yr Polyethylene HDPE No disposal of construction materials
140 0 NA kg dinema and Nylon/yr Nylon 6 No disposal of construction materials
Maintenace
8 7.6 0.4
kg polipropylene and HDPE/yr
Polyethylene HDPE % of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
35 31.5 3.5 kg dinema and Nylon/yr Nylon 6 % of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
5 4.5 0.5 kg HDPE/yr Polyethylene HDPE % of lost parts to sea reported by AQUA
Oysters seed productionThis process is outsourced by AQUA. Therefore no data is available for production of oyster
seed. We cut-off the flow of oyster seed at hatchery.
Oysters seed transport from producer to AQUAThis process includes the use of a truck (<3,5tons) for transporting the oyster seeds from the
hatchery to the harbour (land facilities) of AQUA. We have added in this process the use of a truck,
27
drawn from the ecoinvent v2.2. database: ‘transport, van <3.5t’ ID 1947. This process includes only the operation of the truck for which a mix of fuel i.e. petrol and diesel is assumed (European average process). The maintenance, disposal and all road related inputs were cut-off. We calculate the tons transported as the weight of the oyster seed. We use an average weight of 16 grams per seed and a total of 77000 individual oysters. This lead to around 1.2 tons. The distance between Civitanova Marche and Lavagna, from hatchery to AQUA, is 509 km one way. There is one trip done every two years therefore we assume 509 km per year. The final use of transport per year is tons * km = 627tkm.
There is no mortality of oysters expected during transport.
oysters seed transport from land facilities to the lantern netsFor this process AQUA expects to use boat 2. We added the use of fuel and lubricant oil for the
boat. This process is expected to be done one time every two year. Also, no mortality is assumed during this process.
Fish and oyster management and grow outThis process consists of the addition of data for the monoculture and the IMTA sub-system. The
growth data for the fish and oyster sub-systems of the IMTA system are shown in Table 13.
Table 13. Growth data for AQUA IMTA system. Consists of: 2012 production of fish and industrial scale scenario for oysters production.Parameters Monoculture Unit (per
year)IMTA sub-system Unit (per
year)Base year
2012Scenario:
2 years cycle.Data reported per year.
Fry at cages 850000 Fry 77000 oyster seedFry mortality 5000
(mostly during transport) Fry None
Total feed 589 Tons NoneAdult mortality 255000
(30% lost fry at cages) Fish 15400(20% of seeds are lost to sea)
Harvest 240 Tons 4.2 TonsFCR 2.45
Monoculture inventory data corresponds to 2012 and growth data including uncertainty to 2012, 2013 and 2014. oysters’ data corresponds to scenario data for a two years cycle of production of oysters linearly up scaled from a pilot of 1400 oysters measured data. oysters are grown up to about 68 grams in average.
The assumptions made per flows in the IMTA grow out process are:
Two economic inputs added to the fish growth process: for the compressor the electricity use was added to the monoculture grow-out process. This lead to a demand of 776 m3/yr of compressed air for grow out and management of fish and oysters together (adding processes 5 and 15 in Table 14). For boat 1, the fuel and lubricant use in oysters’ growth was added to the fish growth process (adding process 5 and 15 in Table 11). The totals for the overall system remain equal for inputs of transport by boat 1 and compressed air to other processes. Boats are mostly used for site surveillance during the grow out of oysters.
Sea use: the sea use of the lantern nets has been added to the fish growth process for a total of 25026.6 m2 including fish cages and lantern nets. This corresponds to the necessary area for the deployment of the lantern nets, 26.6 m2 for all lantern nets per
28
year (160 nets) plus the fish cages area. This area lies within the licensed area for AQUA’s operation.
Lost oysters to sea: estimated as 20% of the seed, i.e. 15400 oysters per year, are lost to sea and not recovered. This flow is not classified and in the IMTA system added to the environmental outputs of the overall growth process (incl. fish and oysters).
For the net nutrients emissions (particulate organic matter and phytoplankton), we used the outcomes of the FARM model for the shellfish grown in IMTA setup. For the IMTA system we implemented as the total net emission of nutrients:
o Net emissions from the fish growth (62.4 tons N/yr and 2.4 tons P/yr) - Net uptake (minus emissions) for oysters growth (0.1152 tons N/yr and 0.0091 tons P/yr) = 62285 kg N/yr and 2391 kg P/yr
The new growth process co-produces sea bass and sea bream at cages with oysters at lanterns. Allocation is needed to find the impacts of the fish alone (see Table 15).
Table 14. Amount of m3 of compressed air required per AQUA process for the IMTA systemPROCESSES % of use from total use
in a yearCompressed air
(m3/yr)1 Farm Construcion na na2 Fry production na na3 Fry transport to land na na4 Fry transport to cages 0.01 265 Fish grow out 0.18 5286 Maintenance 0.59 17167 Disease treatment na na8 Harvest 0.13 3709 Ice production na na10 Processing na na11 Transport of fish na na12 oysters seed production na na13 oysters seed transport from producer to AQUA na na14 oysters seed transport from land facilities to longline na na15 oysters management and grow out 0.09 24816 oysters transport from longline to harbour na na17 oysters transport by land to La Spezia na na
Totals 1 2888
oysters transport from longline to harbourFor this process AQUA expects to use boat 2. We added the use of fuel and lubricant oil for the
boat (Table 11). This process is identical to process 14 but oysters are heavier therefore double of the inputs have been assumed. No mortality is assumed during this process.
Oysters transport by land to La SpeziaFor this process, the same van used for fish retail to local market is used. Therefore, values for
fuel use for the van have been adapted. We include 402 additional km’s for oysters transport from AQUA to La Spezia. The efficiency of the van remains the same (litre diesel/km) as do the emissions factors. The new transported load was assumed to be the full yearly production of 4189 kg/yr. The scaled diesel use for the IMTA system equals diesel use in monoculture * km driven in IMTA / km driven for monoculture. This leads to 3917 litres/yr including fish retail and oysters transport (van
29
use in IMTA system). Finally, this is linked to the total tkm used for the IMTA system: 1e7 tkm for fish retail and 2.8e5 tkm for oysters transport to La Spezia.
Cut-offsWith respect to the monoculture system, there are no additional cut-off flows (see Table 9).
AllocationWith respect to the monoculture system, the same assumptions hold in the IMTA system for the
processing of fish and for the retail processes (Table 10). But given the addition of the oysters sub-system, the new fish and oysters management and grow out process required allocation. We used two out of three possible allocation principles (Table 15) for the calculations using uncertainty due to the choice of allocation (Mendoza Beltran et al. 2015):
Partitioning 1: Corresponds to physical allocation. It uses the ratios between the weights of fish and oysters as a basis. This principle is used in the uncertainty calculations.
Partitioning 2: Corresponds to economic allocation. For this we use the price per kg of fish at the farm before processing (i.e. 8 EUR/kg as this price excludes all packaging added value) and the price of oysters at lanterns (i.e.4 EUR/kg). This principle is used in the uncertainty calculations and is also set at the DEFAULT method for the LCIA results without uncertainty.
Partitioning 3: Corresponds to the protein content of fish and oysters. For fish this corresponds to 20% of the fresh weight i.e. 0.2 kg/kg of fish (empirical data) and for oysters this corresponds to about 7 grams of protein per 100 grams of oysters20 (7% of weight). This principle is not used in the calculations as the allocation factors are very similar to those of economic allocation (partitioning 2).
Table 15. Allocation used for the grow out of fish and oysters in the IMTA systemCo-ProductFISH AND OYSTERS
*Applied only for economic allocation and physical allocation. Protein content was not considered as a physical allocation principle as the allocation factors are very similar to those of economic allocation.
Inventory ResultsAnnex I contains the complete inventory table for IMTA system showing the emissions and
resource used per kg of fish (i.e. 0.96 kg of whole packed and 0.04 kg of gutted packed sea bass and sea bream) for AQUA’s production at farm gate including fish local retail.
Aubin, J., E. Papatryphon, H.M.G. van der Werf, and S. Chatzifotis. 2009. Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(3): 354–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.08.008.
Avadi, A., I. Vazquez-Rowe, and P. Freon. 2014. Eco-efficiency assessment of the Peruvian anchoveta steel and wooden fleets using the LCA+DEA framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 70: 118–131.
Fréon, P., A. Avadí, R.A. Vinatea Chavez, and F. Iriarte Ahón. 2014. Life cycle assessment of the Peruvian industrial anchoveta fleet: Boundary setting in life cycle inventory analyses of complex and plural means of production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19(5): 1068–1086.
Henriksson, P.G.J., J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, A. Koning, and D.M. Green. 2013a. A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19(2): 429–436. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-013-0647-4.
Henriksson, P.J.G., J.B. Guinée, R. Heijungs, A. de Koning, and D.M. Green. 2013b. A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19(2): 429–436. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-013-0647-4. Accessed April 28, 2014.
Henriksson, P.J.G., A. Rico, W. Zhang, S. Ahmad-Al-Nahid, R. Newton, L.T. Phan, Z. Zhang, et al. 2015. Comparison of Asian Aquaculture Products by Use of Statistically Supported Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Science and Technology 49(24): 14176–14183.
Henriksson, P.J.G., W. Zhang, S.A.A. Nahid, R. Newton, L.T. Phan, H.M. Dao, Z. Zhang, et al. 2014. Final LCA case study report, Annex report. Leiden. http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/d35-annexreport.pdf.
Islam, M.S., S. Khan, and M. Tanaka. 2004. Waste loading in shrimp and fish processing effluents: Potential source of hazards to the coastal and nearshore environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49(1-2): 103–110.
Mendoza Beltran, A., R. Heijungs, J. Guinée, and A. Tukker. 2015. A pseudo-statistical approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning allocation methods. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-015-0994-4.
Ramalho Ribeiro, A., A. Gonçalves, R. Colen, M.L. Nunes, M.T. Dinis, and J. Dias. 2015. Dietary macroalgae is a natural and effective tool to fortify gilthead seabream fillets with iodine: Effects on growth, sensory quality and nutritional value. Aquaculture 437: 51–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.11.028.
Rico, A. and P.J. Van den Brink. 2014. Probabilistic risk assessment of veterinary medicines applied to four major aquaculture species produced in Asia. Science of the Total Environment 468-469: 630–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.063.
The World Bank Group. 2007. Environmental , Health , and Safety Guidelines for Fish Processing.
Venou, B., M.N. Alexis, E. Fountoulaki, and J. Haralabous. 2009. Performance factors, body composition and digestion characteristics of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) fed pelleted or extruded diets. Aquaculture Nutrition 15(4): 390–401.
31
ANNEX I. INVENTORY TABLE
Label Extensions
Monoculture
(incl.retail) IMTA
Classified Unit
[E1] Occupation, industrial area, built up[landscape] -0.00373 -0.0037 Yes m2a
[E2] Occupation, construction site[landscape] -0.000488 -0.000485 Yes m2a
[E3] Transformation, from unknown[landscape] -0.000248 -0.000246 No m2
[E4] Transformation, to industrial area, built up[landscape] -1.80E-05 -1.78E-05 No m2
[E885] Acetochlor[agric. soil] 1.17E-05 1.16E-05 Yes kg
[E887] Bromoxynil[agric. soil] 2.70E-06 2.68E-06 Yes kg
[E888] Dicamba[agric. soil] 4.23E-07 4.19E-07 Yes kg
[E899] Paraquat[agric. soil] 7.65E-05 7.58E-05 Yes kg
[E901] Prosulfuron[agric. soil] 2.94E-09 2.91E-09 Yes kg
[E903] Simazine[agric. soil] 1.46E-06 1.45E-06 Yes kg
[E905] Chlorpyrifos[agric. soil] 1.62E-06 1.61E-06 Yes kg
[E908] Lambda-cyhalothrin[agric. soil] 5.93E-07 5.88E-07 Yes kg
[E911] Tefluthrin[agric. soil] 1.25E-08 1.24E-08 Yes kg
[E913] Metconazole[agric. soil] 7.47E-08 7.41E-08 No kg
[E914] Prochloraz[agric. soil] 4.58E-07 4.54E-07 Yes kg
[E918] Deltamethrin[agric. soil] 3.71E-08 3.68E-08 Yes kg
[E919] Trinexapac-ethyl[agric. soil] 6.41E-07 6.36E-07 Yes kg
[E920] Azoxystrobin[agric. soil] 2.00E-06 1.98E-06 Yes kg
[E922] Epoxiconazole[agric. soil] 6.05E-07 6.00E-07 Yes kg
[E924] Fenpropidin[agric. soil] 5.20E-06 5.16E-06 No kg
[E927] Kresoxim-methyl[agric. soil] 1.69E-07 1.67E-07 Yes kg
[E928] Propiconazole[agric. soil] 2.51E-06 2.49E-06 Yes kg
[E929] Spiroxamine[agric. soil] 2.70E-06 2.68E-06 No kg
[E930] Triadimenol[agric. soil] 6.23E-08 6.18E-08 Yes kg
[E934] Diflufenican[agric. soil] 2.14E-06 2.13E-06 Yes kg
[E935] Fluroxypyr[agric. soil] 3.04E-06 3.02E-06 Yes kg
[E936] Flurtamone[agric. soil] 7.67E-07 7.61E-07 No kg
[E938] MCPA[agric. soil] 8.61E-06 8.54E-06 Yes kg
[E940] Metsulfuron-methyl[agric. soil] 7.51E-08 7.45E-08 Yes kg
[E941] Thifensulfuron-methyl[agric. soil] 4.76E-08 4.72E-08 Yes kg
[E943] Dimethoate[agric. soil] 4.55E-08 4.51E-08 Yes kg
[E946] Parathion[agric. soil] 3.70E-07 3.67E-07 Yes kg
[E955] Benzyl alcohol[fresh water] -3.44E-24 -7.32E-24 Yes kg
[E956] Cyclohexane[air] 9.71E-28 9.60E-28 Yes kg
[E958] Diethylene glycol[air] 1.46E-20 1.45E-20 Yes kg
[E964] Diethyl ether[air] 3.04E-27 3.01E-27 Yes kg
[E967] Dimethylamine[air] 2.64E-27 5.07E-27 Yes kg
[E971] Chlorimuron-ethyl[agric. soil] 5.78E-05 5.73E-05 No kg
[E974] Fenoxaprop[agric. soil] 1.17E-08 1.16E-08 No kg
51
[E977] Imazamox[agric. soil] 1.76E-08 1.75E-08 Yes kg
[E980]Cerium, 24% in bastnasite, 2.4% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -8.96E-18 -8.93E-18 No kg
[E981]Lanthanum, 7.2% in bastnasite, 0.72% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -2.69E-18 -2.68E-18 No kg
[E982]Neodymium, 4% in bastnasite, 0.4% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -1.48E-18 -1.47E-18 No kg
[E983]Praseodymium, 0.42% in bastnasite, 0.042% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -1.57E-19 -1.56E-19 No kg
[E984]Europium, 0.06% in bastnasite, 0.006% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -2.24E-20 -2.24E-20 No kg
[E985]Samarium, 0.3% in bastnasite, 0.03% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -1.12E-19 -1.11E-19 No kg
[E986]Gadolinium, 0.15% in bastnasite, 0.015% in crude ore, in ground[resources] -5.60E-20 -5.58E-20 No kg
[E987] Florasulam[agric. soil] 4.94E-09 4.90E-09 No kg
[E988] Flufenacet[agric. soil] 7.36E-07 7.30E-07 Yes kg
[E990] Chloridazon[agric. soil] 7.35E-06 7.29E-06 Yes kg
[E991] Picoxystrobin[agric. soil] 2.32E-07 2.30E-07 No kg
[E995] Tralkoxydim[agric. soil] 2.06E-08 2.04E-08 No kg
[E996] Tribenuron-methyl[agric. soil] 2.35E-08 2.33E-08 Yes kg
[E998] Pronamide[agric. soil] 1.27E-05 1.26E-05 Yes kg
[E999] Bifenox[agric. soil] 7.83E-07 7.76E-07 Yes kg
[E1000] Mepiquat chloride[agric. soil] 9.23E-08 9.15E-08 Yes kg
[E1001] Anthraquinone[agric. soil] 1.17E-06 1.16E-06 Yes kg
[E1002] Bitertanol[agric. soil] 1.75E-08 1.73E-08 Yes kg
[E1003] Carfentrazone ethyl ester[agric. soil] 1.36E-08 1.35E-08 Yes kg
[E1004] Clopyralid[agric. soil] 6.86E-07 6.81E-07 Yes kg
[E1005] Diclofop-methyl[agric. soil] 1.75E-06 1.73E-06 Yes kg
[E1007] Fludioxonil[agric. soil] 1.12E-07 1.11E-07 Yes kg
[E1008] Imidacloprid[agric. soil] 8.14E-08 8.08E-08 Yes kg
[E1010] Pyraclostrobin (prop)[agric. soil] 7.40E-07 7.34E-07 No kg
[E1011] Trifloxystrobin[agric. soil] 3.32E-07 3.30E-07 No kg
[E1017] Clodinafop-propargyl[agric. soil] 1.07E-06 1.06E-06 Yes kg
[E1018] Mecoprop[agric. soil] 4.16E-06 4.13E-06 Yes kg
[E1019] Cloquintocet-mexyl[agric. soil] 2.61E-07 2.58E-07 Yes kg
[E1020] Bromuconazole[agric. soil] 5.29E-08 5.25E-08 Yes kg
[E1021] Choline chloride[agric. soil] 1.01E-05 9.97E-06 Yes kg
[E1022] Flupyrsulfuron-methyl[agric. soil] 7.07E-09 7.02E-09 No kg
[E1023] Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium[agric. soil] 4.41E-09 4.38E-09 No kg
[E1024] Mesosulfuron-methyl (prop)[agric. soil] 2.35E-08 2.33E-08 No kg
[E1025] Metosulam[agric. soil] 1.39E-08 1.38E-08 No kg
[E1026] Prohexadione-calcium[agric. soil] 5.49E-09 5.45E-09 No kg
[E1027] Propoxycarbazone-sodium (prop)[agric. soil] 3.04E-08 3.02E-08 No kg
[E1028] Quinoxyfen[agric. soil] 2.66E-07 2.64E-07 No kg
[E1029] Silthiofam[agric. soil] 4.09E-07 4.06E-07 No kg
[E1033] Maneb[agric. soil] 4.23E-08 4.20E-08 Yes kg
[E1038] Diquat[agric. soil] 5.59E-20 5.36E-20 No kg
[E1041] Aldicarb[agric. soil] 4.56E-07 4.52E-07 Yes kg
[E1043] Carbaryl[agric. soil] 3.80E-07 3.77E-07 Yes kg
52
[E1048] Phorate[agric. soil] 1.52E-07 1.51E-07 Yes kg
[E1049] Phosmet[agric. soil] 1.14E-07 1.13E-07 Yes kg
[E1051] Propargite[agric. soil] 1.14E-07 1.13E-07 Yes kg
[E1054] Thiamethoxam[agric. soil] 1.52E-07 1.51E-07 No kg
[E1055] Trichlorfon[agric. soil] 3.86E-19 3.71E-19 Yes kg
[E1065] Propanil[agric. soil] 1.46E-06 1.45E-06 Yes kg
[E1070] Chlorsulfuron[agric. soil] 4.70E-08 4.66E-08 Yes kg
[E1071] Diuron[agric. soil] 6.14E-05 6.09E-05 Yes kg
[E1072] Flucarbazone sodium salt[agric. soil] 2.94E-09 2.91E-09 No kg
[E1073] Picloram[agric. soil] 5.87E-09 5.82E-09 No kg
[E1074] Sulfosulfuron[agric. soil] 7.05E-08 6.99E-08 Yes kg
[E1075] Tri-allate[agric. soil] 1.59E-07 1.57E-07 Yes kg
[E1076] Triasulfuron[agric. soil] 4.70E-08 4.66E-08 Yes kg
[E1089] Acephate[agric. soil] 4.56E-07 4.52E-07 Yes kg
[E1092] Dicrotophos[agric. soil] 1.14E-07 1.13E-07 Yes kg
[E1107] Tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide[air] 1.29E-23 1.27E-23 No kg
[E1108] Sodium tetrahydroborate[air] 3.56E-25 3.52E-25 No kg
[E1109] Phosphoric acid[air] 9.71E-28 9.60E-28 Yes kg
[E1110] Nitrogen fluoride[air] 5.37E-28 5.31E-28 Yes kg
[E1111] Boric acid[air] 2.74E-29 2.71E-29 No kg
[E1112] Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-, HCFC-140[fresh water] 4.59E-31 4.53E-31 Yes kg
[E1121] Phosphorus trichloride[air] 1.32E-06 1.31E-06 No kg
[E1122] TSP[air] 8.98E-18 8.62E-18 No kg
[E1184] Occupation, sea and ocean[landscape] -0.0995 -0.0987 Yes m2a
[E1220] Captan[agric. soil] 8.49E-08 8.42E-08 Yes kg
[E1488] Trifluralin[fresh water, 2011] 1.07E-19 1.03E-19 Yes kg
[E1497] Iodine[fresh water, 2011] 2.67E-18 2.57E-18 Yes kg
[E1512] Dead Fry[marine water, IT, 2012] 0.0199 0.0197 No fry
[E1513] Lost Fish[marine water, IT, 2012] 1.01 1.01 No unit
[E1514] oxytetracycline[marine water, IT, 2012] 0.000489 0.000485 No kg
[E1515] flumequine[marine water, IT, 2012] 5.49E-06 5.45E-06 No kg
[E1516] Lost oysters to sea[marine water, IT] 0.0608 No oysters
53
ANNEX II. FOREGROUND PROCESSESUnit process data for AQUA foreground processes including flow values, units and uncertainty parameters. L = Lognormal distribution and in parenthesis the value of phi, the uncertainty parameter used in CMLCA. NA = Not applicable. Values in parenthesis for some flows correspond to the IMTA system value. Otherwise they are the same for IMTA and monoculture.
S2. Farm Construction
Label Name
Value Monocluture(IMTA value)
Unit Uncertainty Value (EUR)
Economic inflows
[G23] polyethylene, HDPE, granulate, at plant[RER]14400 kg - 0
[G53] polypropylene, granulate, at plant[RER]6430 kg - 0
[G104] building, multi-storey[RER]160 m3 - 0
[G671] polystyrene, general purpose, GPPS, at plant[RER]1030 kg - 0
[G1246] nylon 6, at plant[RER]1020
(1160) kg - 0
[G1547] steel, converter, low-alloyed, at plant[RER]5700 kg - 0
