IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3951-d528995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lifecycle Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate Made from Non-Edible Biomass

Author

Listed:
  • Keiji Nakamura

    (Graduate School of Environmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City University, Yokohama 224-8551, Japan
    Research and Business Planning Department, Ajinomoto Co., Inc., Tokyo 104-8315, Japan)

  • Norihiro Itsubo

    (Faculty of Environmental Studies, Tokyo City University, Tokyo 158-8557, Japan)

Abstract

The open burning of agricultural residues derived from rice is a social issue in Thailand, as it causes air pollution in the form of smoke. A way to prevent smoke air pollution is to pulverize glycosylated non-edible biomass and convert it to monosodium glutamate (MSG). This study assessed MSG produced by non-edible biomass and compared the environmental performance of MSG produced using tapioca starch. The scope of this study ranges from the cultivation of raw materials to the production of MSG. The adopted impact categories include carbon, water, and air pollution. The primary data refer to the average unit input and fuel consumption of annual MSG production. The secondary data are used for inventories, namely, Ecoinvent 3, the Water Footprint Network, and the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. We also conducted an impact assessment of the health impacts and weighting across several impact categories using LIME-3. The human health impact assessments for MSG from non-edible biomass and tapioca starch show gains of 1.92 × 10 −5 and 3.59 × 10 −5 DALYs per kg MSG, respectively. This difference is due to declining water scarcity and air pollution footprints. We found that using rice straw prevents water scarcity and smoke air pollution caused by open burning.

Suggested Citation

  • Keiji Nakamura & Norihiro Itsubo, 2021. "Lifecycle Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate Made from Non-Edible Biomass," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3951-:d:528995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3951/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3951/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shinjiro Yano & Naota Hanasaki & Norihiro Itsubo & Taikan Oki, 2015. "Water Scarcity Footprints by Considering the Differences in Water Sources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Pino & Pierluigi Toma & Cristian Rizzo & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Alessandro M. Peluso & Gianluigi Guido, 2017. "Determinants of Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Water Saving Measures: Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Kamrul Islam & Masaharu Motoshita & Shinsuke Murakami, 2023. "Environmental Sustainability of Bricks in an Emerging Economy: Current Environmental Hotspots and Mitigation Potentials for the Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Liao, Xiawei & Zhao, Xu & Liu, Wenfeng & Li, Ruoshui & Wang, Xiaoxi & Wang, Wenpeng & Tillotson, Martin R., 2020. "Comparing water footprint and water scarcity footprint of energy demand in China’s six megacities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    4. Ik Kim & Kyung-shin Kim, 2019. "Estimation of Water Footprint for Major Agricultural and Livestock Products in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Chen Cao & Xiaohan Lu & Xuyong Li, 2019. "Risk Assessment and Pressure Response Analysis of the Water Footprint of Agriculture and Livestock: A Case Study of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Delbourg, Esther & Dinar, Shlomi, 2020. "The globalization of virtual water flows: Explaining trade patterns of a scarce resource," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Thapat Silalertruksa & Shabbir H. Gheewala & Rattanawan Mungkung & Pariyapat Nilsalab & Naruetep Lecksiwilai & Wanchat Sawaengsak, 2017. "Implications of Water Use and Water Scarcity Footprint for Sustainable Rice Cultivation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3951-:d:528995. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.