Investigating the Effect of using Different Energy Sources on Environmental Indices in Edible Oil Processing

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

Article 7, Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 63, March 2025, Pages 123-144   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/agry.2024.89603.1211

Authors

Yaser Rahmati Khorshidi¹; Hemmatollah Pirdashti^{* 2}; Ali Motevali³; Seyed Hashem Samadi⁴; Benyamin Khoshnevisan⁵

¹Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Sciences, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

²Department of Agronomy, Genetics and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute of Tabarestan, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

³Department of Mechanical & Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

⁴Department of Mechanical & Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

⁵Department of Green Technology (IGT), Life Cycle Engineering, Southern Denmark University, Denmark.

Abstract

Introduction
This comprehensive study investigates sustainable energy solutions for rapeseed oil production through a comparative analysis of three distinct operational scenarios: conventional non-renewable energy systems, photovoltaic solar energy implementation, and canola residue gasification technologies. The research was conducted across two major production facilities, Behpak factory in Behshahr, specializing in oil extraction, and Ghoncheh factory in Sari, handling refinement and packaging processes, to evaluate environmental impacts under different energy regimes.
Materials and Methods
Using advanced modeling approaches, the solar photovoltaic system was meticulously designed in HOMER software while gasification processes were simulated through MATLAB, with all primary operational data obtained through extensive interviews with factory engineers. The life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed using SimaPro software with the ReCiPe 2016 model, analyzing every 1000 kg of packaged rapeseed oil output across three fundamental categories: human health consequences, ecosystem quality preservation, and resource utilization efficiency.
Results and Discussion
Simulation results showed that gasification technology achieves optimal performance within an equivalence ratio range of 0.20–0.45, with detailed analysis indicating that exceeding this range significantly reduces both gas yield and system efficiency. At the optimal equivalence ratio of 0.3, the system produced 1,069 kWh of electricity and 2,567 kWh of thermal energy per 1,000 kg of processed oil, representing a substantial improvement over conventional methods. The solar photovoltaic implementation, comprising 5,700 panels, demonstrated remarkable capacity by generating 7.15 million kWh annually, exceeding the factories' energy requirements by 2.9 million kWh. However, an environmental impact analysis revealed crucial differences between the renewable alternatives. While gasification showed a 35% reduction in environmental burdens (45.13 environmental points versus 69.29 points for conventional systems), the solar scenario achieved a more modest 14% improvement. This discrepancy primarily stems from the shift in pollution sources – where conventional systems showed electricity consumption accounting for approximately 50% of environmental impacts across critical categories including global warming potential, ionizing radiation effects, ozone formation, particulate matter generation, terrestrial acidification, ecotoxicity, and fossil resource depletion, the renewable scenarios revealed polyethylene packaging materials as the new dominant pollution source. A detailed examination of impact categories revealed that in renewable energy implementations, polyethylene contributed 60–75% of the remaining environmental burdens, significantly influencing multiple indicators, including climate change metrics, aquatic toxicity parameters, and resource depletion indices. The human health category emerged as the most severely impacted across all scenarios, with particular concern for carcinogenic potential and respiratory effects. Comparative analysis demonstrated that while renewable energy adoption effectively addresses energy-related impacts, it simultaneously highlights material-related challenges that require urgent attention. The gasification scenario, while showing superior overall performance, still exhibited significant impacts from polyethylene inputs, whereas the solar scenario revealed additional concerns related to battery storage systems and water consumption throughout the production chain. These findings carry important implications for sustainable oil production. The study confirms that canola residue gasification represents the most environmentally favorable option among examined alternatives, capable of meeting approximately 50% of energy demands while significantly reducing ecological footprints. Solar photovoltaic systems, while technologically viable and capable of substantial energy generation, show somewhat limited environmental benefits due to persistent packaging-related impacts. Crucially, the research identifies that a comprehensive sustainability strategy must address both energy sources and material inputs, particularly focusing on polyethylene alternatives, to achieve meaningful environmental improvements. The quantitative outcomes provide clear guidance for policymakers and industry stakeholders, with non-renewable systems scoring 69.29 environmental points, gasification at 45.13 points, and solar at 59.48 points in the ReCiPe 2016 evaluation.
Conclusion
This investigation makes significant contributions to the field by: (1) Quantifying the precise equivalence ratio range for optimal gasification of canola residues; (2) Demonstrating the energy surplus potential of solar implementations in industrial oil production; (3) Revealing the critical shift from energy-dominated to material- dominated environmental impacts in renewable scenarios; and (4) Providing concrete data comparing three operational approaches using standardized LCA methodology. The results underscore the necessity of integrated solutions combining optimized energy systems with sustainable material choices to advance environmental performance in edible oil production.
Acknowledgments
 We would like to acknowledge Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU) for the financial support and Behpak and Ghoncheh factories for their collaboration.







 




 
 

Keywords

Gasification; Non-renewable energy; Oil extraction; Photovoltaic

References

1. Alamsyah, R., Loebis, E.H., Susanto, E., Junaidi, L., & Siregar, N.C., (2015). An experimental study on synthetic gas (Syngas) production through gasification of Indonesian biomass pellet. Energy Procedia, 65, 292–299. https://doi.org/1016/j.egypro.2015.01.053
2. Alishah, A., Motevali, A., Tabatabaeekoloor, R., & Hashemi, S.J. (2019). Multiyear life energy and life cycle assessment of orange production in Iran. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(31), 32432–32445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06344-y
3. Baqa, S., Sajjadi, N., & Jozi, S.A. (2018). Investigating the environmental effects of different generations of solar cells. Environmental Science Studies, 4(1), 1092-1099. (in Persian with English abstract)
4. Basappaji, K.M., & Nagesha, N., (2013). Cleaner production in rice processing: an efficient energy utilization approach. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 8(15), 1783-1790.
5. Binici, H., & Aksogan, O. (2016). Eco-friendly insulation material production with waste olive seeds, ground PVC and wood chips, Journal of Building Engineering, 5, 260-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.01.008
6. Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., & Lammel, J. (2004a). Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. European Journal of Agronomy, 20, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00024-8
7. Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Barraclough, P., & Kuhlmann, H. (2004b). Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology II. The application to N fertilizer use in winter wheat production systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 20, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00039-X
8. Dai, L.; Jia, J.; Yu, D., Lewis, B.J.; Zhou, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhao, W., & Jiang, L. (2013). Effects of climate change on biomass carbon sequestration in old-growth forest ecosystems on Changbai Mountain in Northeast China. Forest Ecology and Management, 300, 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.046
9. Dalgaard, T., Halberg, N., & Fenger, J. (2000). Fossil energy use and emissions of greenhouse gases – three scenarios for conversion to 100% organic farming in Denmark. In: E. van Lerland, A.Q. Lansink, and E. Schmieman (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Energy: New Challenges for Agriculture and Implications for Land Use, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Chapter 7.2.1, 11 p.
10. Dekamin, M., Barmaki, M., Kanooni, A., & Mosavi, S.R (2018). Study of the environmental impacts of oil seed crops production in by using the life cycle assessment in Ardabil province. Journal of Agroecology, 10(1), 160-174. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/22067/JAG.V10I1.55340
11. Erfani, R., Pirdashti, H., Abbasi, R., & Nouri, M.Z. (2017). Evaluation of energy efficiency components in organic, low-input and conventional rice (Oryza sativa) farming systems. Ph.D. Dessertation, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran. pp. 125. (in Persian with English abstract)
12. FAO. (2023). World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook 2023. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8166en
13. Fathollahi, H., Rafiei, S., & Mousavi I.S.E. (2016). Evaluation of energy, economic and environmental indicators in rainfed and irrigated wheat production (case study: Lorestan province). Iranian Biosystem Engineering Journal, 48(4), 527-537. (in Persian with English abstract)
14. Georgiopoulou, M., &Lyberatos, G. (2018). Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative fuels in cement kilns: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 216, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.017
15. Guinée, J.B., & Lindeijer, E., (2002). Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards (EcoEfficiency in Industry and Science (Vol. 7)). Springer Science and Business Media.
16. Hosseini-Fashami, F., Motevali, A., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Hashemi Seyyed, J., & Chau, K. (2019) Energy-life cycle assessment on applying solar technologies for greenhouse strawberry production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 116, 109411.
17. Huchon, V., François, P., Commandré, J., & Laurent, V. (2020). How electrical engine power load and feedstock moisture content affect the performance of a fixed bed gasification genset. Energy, Elsevier, 197(C). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117144
18. (2007a). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 850 pp.
19. IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (p. 976). In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
    https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/80107/frontmatter/9780521880107_frontmatter.pdf
20. Iribarren, D., Teresa Moreira, M., & Feijoo, G. (2010). Life cycle assessment of fresh and canned mussel processing and consumption in Galicia (NW Spain). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 106–117.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.08.001
21. ISO 14040. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management- Life Cycle.
22. Keikha, M., Darzi-Naftchali, A., Motevali, A., & Valipour, M. (2023). Effect of nitrogen management on the environmental and economic sustainability of wheat production in different climates. Agricultural Water Management, 276, 108060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108060
23. Khanali, M., Mousavi, S.A., Sharifi, M., Keyhani-Nasab, F., & Chau, K. (2018) Life cycle assessment of canola edible oil production in Iran: A case study in Isfahan province. Journal of Cleaner Production 196, 714-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.217
24. Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiei, S. Omid, M., & Mousazadeh, (2012). Modeling and forecasting of environmental indicators of potato cultivation using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and life cycle assessment approach. The Second National Conference on Environmental Protection and Planning, Hamedan, Iran. (In Persian)
25. Khoshnevisan, B., Bolandnazar, E., Shamshirband, S., Shariati, H.M., Anuar, N.B., & Mat Kiah, M.L. (2015). Decreasing environmental impacts of cropping systems using life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-objective genetic algorithm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.062
26. Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., & Mousazadeh, H., (2013). Environmental impact assessment of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. European Journal of Agronomy, 50, 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.003
27. Komleh, S.H., Akram, A., &Keyhani, A. (2017). Life cycle assessment of paste production (case study: Alborz province). Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 47(4), 688-677. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijbse.2017.60262
28. Li, Q., Song, G., Xiao, J., Hao, J., Li, H., & Yuan, Y., (2020). Exergetic life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from biomass staged-gasification. Energy, 190, 116416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116416
29. Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Gibon, T., Bodirsky, B.L., De Boer, H.S., Fricko, O., Hejazi, M., Humpenöder, F., Iyer, G., & Mima, S., (2019). Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13067-8
30. Makkar, H.P.S. (2018). Review: Feed demand landscape and implications of food-not feed strategy for food security and climate change. Animal, 12(8), 1744-1754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111700324X. Epub 2017 Dec 4. PMID: 29198265
31. Malek, F. (2009) Characteristics and processing of edible vegetable fats and oils, second edition, Agricultural Education and Promotion Publications.Iran, 470p. (In Persian)
32. Mirhaji, H., Khojastehpour, M., Abaspour-fard, M.H. (2013). Environmental effects of wheat production in the Marvdasht region. Journal of Natural Environment, 66(2), 223-232. (In Persian). https://doi.org/22059/JNE.2013.35859
33. Mofijur, M., Mahlia, T.M.I., Logeswaran, J., Anwar, M., Silitonga, A.S., Rahman, S.A., & Shamsuddin, A.H. (2019). Potential of rice industry biomass as a renewable energy source. Energies, 12(21), 4116. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12214116
34. Mohammadi, M., &Hammati, A. (2022). Environmental effects of consumer plastics, 6^th National Conference on Chemistry and Nanotechnology Development, Tehran, https://civilica.com/doc/1672592. (In Persian)
35. Motevali, A., Hashemi, S.J., & Tabatabaeekoloor, R. (2019). Environmental footprint study of white rice production chain-case study: Northern of Iran. Journal of Environmental Management, 241, 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.033
36. Motevali, A., Hooshmandzadeh, N., Fayyazi, E., Valipour, M., & Yue, J. (2023). Environmental Impacts of biodiesel production cycle from farm to manufactory: An application of sustainable systems engineering. Atmosphere, 14(2), 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14020399
37. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Azadi, H., Van Passele, S., Saber, Z., Hosseini-Fashami, F., Mostashari-Rad, F., & Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H. (2021). Prospects of solar systems in production chain of sunflower oil using cold press method with concentrating energy and life cycle assessment. Energy, 223, 120117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120117
38. Nasrollahi, M., Motevali, A., Banakar, A., &Montazeri, M. (2023). Comparison of environmental impact on various desalination technologies. Desalination, 547, 116253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.116253
39. Pourbehzadi, M., Niknam, T., Aghaei, J., Mokryani, G., Shafie-khah, M., & Catalão, J.P. (2019). Optimal operation of hybrid AC/DC microgrids under uncertainty of renewable energy resources: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 109, 139-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.01.025
40. Rajaeifar, M.A., Akram, A., Ghobadian, B., Rafiee, S. & Heidari, M.D. (2014). Energy_economic life cycle assessment (LCA) and greenhouse gas emission analysis of olive oil production in Iran. Energy, 66, 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.059.
41. Rajaeifar, M.A., Ghobadian, B., Heidari, M.D., & Fayyazi, E. (2013). Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of biodiesel production from rapeseed in Iran. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 5(063134), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4854596.
42. Reiche, D. (2003). Handbook of Renewable Energies in the European Union, vol. II. Published by Frankfurt, Germany. 332 pp.
43. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., & Shiina, T. (2009). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016
44. Saadati, A., &Portahmasbi, K. (2012). Ability to produce bioenergy from hemp biomass. National Conference on Natural Resources Management. SID. (In Persian). https://sid.ir/paper/883604/fa .
45. Safiuddin, M. (2009) Design, construction and evaluation of castor oil extraction machine for biodiesel production. M.Sc. Thesis, Tarbiat Madras University, Tehran, Iran,109 pp. (in Persian with English abstract)
46. Salavati, S. )2017(. Gasification of waste and biomass and its effects on the environment. Quarterly Journal of Application of Chemistry in Environment, 9(36), 13-19. (in Persian with English abstract)
47. Salomón, M. Savola, T., Martin, A., Fogelholm, C., & Fransson C. (2011). Small-scale biomass CHP plants in Sweden and Finland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4451-4465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.106.
48. Samadi, S.H., Ghobadian, B., & Nosrati, M. (2020). Prediction and estimation of biomass energy from agricultural residues using air gasification technology in Iran. Renewable Energy, 149, 1077–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.109.
49. SamiHesar, B., Zarghami, M., Yegani, R., & Sabahi, M. (2018) Design of solar water softener system by reverse osmosis-photovoltaic method (case study: Brackish water of Sarband village, Ardabil). Water and Wastewater Engineering Sciences, 4(2), 37-46. (in Persian with English abstract)
50. Sarasuk, K., & Sajjakulnukit, B. (2011). Design of a lab-scale two-stage rice husk gasifier. Energy Procedia, 9, 178-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.09.019
51. Schreiber, S.J., & Lloyd-Smith, J.O. (2009). Invasion dynamics in spatially heterogeneous environments. The American Naturalist, 174(4), 490-505. https://doi.org/1086/605405. PMID: 19737109
52. Soheili-Fard, F., &Kouchaki-Penchah, H. (2015). Assessing environmental burdens of sugar beet production in East Azerbaijan province of IR Iran based on farms size levels. International Journal of Farm Science, 4 (5) 489-495.
53. Soltani, A., Rajabi, M.H., Zeinali, E., & Soltani, E., (2011). Evaluation of environmental impact of crop production using LCA: wheat in Gorgan. Journal of Crop Production, 3, 201-218. (in Persian with English abstract). https://dorl.net/dor/1001.1.2008739.1389.3.3.12.1
54. Taheri Asl, A., Reihani, M., & Azari, M. (2014). The effect of using solar energy to reduce environmental pollution. International Conference on Architecture, Urban Planning, Civil Engineering, Art and Environment. SID. (in Persian with English abstract). https://sid.ir/paper/827862/fa