Life cycle assessment (LCA) of cleaning-in-place processes in dairies |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. TINE Norwegian Dairies BA, P.O. Box 7 Kalbakken, N-0902 Oslo, Norway;2. SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 5401, SE-402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden;1. Centre for Formulation Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;2. Procter & Gamble Technical Center Ltd., Whitley Road, Longbenton, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE12 9TS, UK;1. RISE AgriFood and Bioscience, Box 5401 402 29 Göteborg, Sweden;2. Division of Physical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Lund University, PO Box 124, 221 00 Lund, Sweden;3. Tetra Pak Processing Systems, Research & Technology, Ruben Rausings gata, 221 86 Lund, Sweden;4. Department of Food Technology, Engineering and Nutrition, Lund University, PO Box 124, 221 00 Lund, Sweden;1. The Ohio State University, Department of Food Science & Technology, 2015 Fyffe Ct., Columbus OH 43210, USA;2. University of Birmingham, School of Chemical Engineering, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands, B15 2TT, UK;3. The Ohio State University, Department of Food, Agriculture and Biological Engineering, 590 Woody Hayes Drive, Columbus, OH 43210, USA;1. Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany;2. Institute of Natural Materials Technology, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Four Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) methods for dairies were compared using life cycle assessment (LCA). The methods were conventional alkaline/acid cleaning with hot water disinfection, one-phase alkaline cleaning with acid chemical disinfection, enzyme-based cleaning with acid chemical disinfection and the conventional method with disinfection by cold nitric acid at pH 2. Production of detergents, transport, the user phase in the dairy and waste management of containers were included. The user phase was found to be the most important part of the life cycle. The CIP methods with small volumes and low temperatures, such as enzyme-based cleaning and one-phase alkaline cleaning, turned out to be the best alternatives for the impact categories energy use, global warming, acidification, eutrophication and photo-oxidant formation. Milk residues flushed out in the rinsing phase were the main contributor to eutrophication, but the phosphorus and nitrogen in the detergents also influenced the results. Evaluation of toxic substances poses a methodological problem in LCA. In this study, detergents partly composed of toxic substances were included, and the overall assessment was that the one-phase alkaline cleaning method was preferable from an environmental point of view. A qualitative assessment of toxicity was performed. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
