1 Introduction
2 Methods
2.1 Goal and scope definition
2.2 System definition and system boundaries
2.3 Inventory analysis
2.4 Almond production
2.5 Almond processing and milk production
Year | |||
---|---|---|---|
2016a | 2017a | Unit | |
Inputs | |||
Grid electricity | 1.93 × 10−01 | 1.85 × 10−01 | kWh/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Natural gas | 3.25 × 10−02 | 3.21 × 10−02 | m3/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Propane | 2.66 × 10−04 | 6.11 × 10−05 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Water “In-Use” | 5.81 | 6.03 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Water consumedb | 3.07 | 3.19 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Ingredientsc (almonds, calcium carbonate, sunflower lecithin, sea salt, potassium citrate, natural flavors, locust bean gum, gellan gum) | 5.34 × 10−02 | 5.10 × 10−02 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Cleanersd | 8.77 × 10−04 | 7.48 × 10−04 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Ingredients packaginge | 2.27 × 10−03 | 2.16 × 10−03 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Cleaners packaginge | 3.10 × 10−06 | 3.36 × 10−06 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
48 oz. bottle (polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic) | 6.41 × 10−02 | 6.41 × 10−02 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Bottle cap (polypropylene (PP) plastic) | 1.46 × 10−02 | 1.46 × 10−02 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Bottle label (polystyrene film) | 6.00 × 10−03 | 6.00 × 10−03 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Heat seal (aluminum foil, polyethylene (PE) foam, PE)f | 2.53 × 10−04 | 2.53 × 10−04 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
Transport (for all inputs) | 4.93 | 4.69 | kg km |
Outputs | |||
lbs to landfill (trash) | 5.94 × 10−03 | 4.74 × 10−03 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
lbs to recycling or reused | 1.87 × 10−02 | 1.57 × 10−02 | kg/48 oz. (1.42 L) |
2.6 Co-product allocation
Life cycle stage | Almond cultivation | Hulling and shelling facility | Almond processing facility | Almond milk production facility | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product | Whole almond fruit | Almond meat | Almond meal | Unsweetened almond milk | |
Baseline approach | Economic allocation factor | 1.000 | 0.9752 | 0.3668 | 0.1606 (2016) 0.1769 (2017) |
Alternative approach | Mass allocation factor | N/A | N/A | 0.3331 | 0.1848 (2016) 0.2131 (2017) |
Co-product and its displacement use | 68% of orchard biomass used in power generation | 100% of hulls used in dairy feed ration | N/A | N/A |
2.7 Impact assessment
3 Results
3.1 Total primary energy, freshwater consumption, and global warming potential
Units | Year | Almond milk ingredients | 48 oz. (1.42 L) PET bottle | Bottle cap and other primary packaging | Natural gas | Electricity | Other | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecotoxicity potential (ETP) | CTUe | 2017 | 2.87 | 1.64 × 10−02 | 5.68 × 10−03 | 2.01 × 10−01 | 1.87 × 10−03 | 6.83 × 10−03 | 3.10 |
2016 | 3.00 | 1.64 × 10−02 | 5.68 × 10−03 | 2.03 × 10−01 | 1.95 × 10−03 | 7.78 × 10−03 | 3.24 | ||
Human toxicity, potential, cancer (HTPc) | CTUh | 2017 | 2.14 × 10−09 | 1.02 × 10−10 | 2.95 × 10−11 | 2.32 × 10−10 | 1.27 × 10−11 | 1.19 × 10−10 | 2.63 × 10−09 |
2016 | 2.24 × 10−09 | 1.02 × 10−10 | 2.95 × 10−11 | 2.34 × 10−10 | 1.33 × 10−11 | 1.39 × 10−10 | 2.76 × 10−09 | ||
Human toxicity potential, non-cancer (HTPnc) | CTUh | 2017 | 1.42 × 10−07 | 4.72 × 10−09 | 1.71 × 10−09 | 8.38 × 10−09 | −4.30 × 10−10 | 9.53 × 10−09 | 1.66 × 10−07 |
2016 | 1.49 × 10−07 | 4.72 × 10−09 | 1.71 × 10−09 | 8.47 × 10−09 | −4.49 × 10−10 | 1.16 × 10−08 | 1.75 × 10−07 | ||
Human health particulate air (HHPA) | kg PM2.5e | 2017 | 8.69 × 10−05 | 2.70 × 10−05 | 8.88 × 10−06 | 8.10 × 10−05 | 8.21 × 10−06 | 4.97 × 10−06 | 2.17 × 10−04 |
2016 | 9.10 × 10−05 | 2.70 × 10−05 | 8.88 × 10−06 | 8.19 × 10−05 | 8.57 × 10−06 | 5.22 × 10−06 | 2.23 × 10−04 | ||
Ozone depletion potential (ODP) | kg CFC-11e | 2017 | 1.41 × 10−08 | 2.07 × 10−11 | 1.01 × 10−11 | 5.59 × 10−10 | 2.22 × 10−11 | 1.03 × 10−10 | 1.48 × 10−08 |
2016 | 1.48 × 10−08 | 2.07 × 10−11 | 1.01 × 10−11 | 5.65 × 10−10 | 2.32 × 10−11 | 1.21 × 10−10 | 1.55 × 10−08 | ||
Smog formation potential (Smog) | kg O3e | 2017 | 1.11 × 10−02 | 5.83 × 10−03 | 1.56 × 10−03 | 1.85 × 10−03 | 1.95 × 10−03 | 1.69 × 10−03 | 2.40 × 10−02 |
2016 | 1.17 × 10−02 | 5.83 × 10−03 | 1.56 × 10−03 | 1.87 × 10−03 | 2.03 × 10−03 | 1.68 × 10−03 | 2.46 × 10−02 | ||
Acidification potential (AP) | kg SO2e | 2017 | 8.59 × 10−04 | 3.74 × 10−04 | 1.11 × 10−04 | 1.28 × 10−03 | 1.83 × 10−04 | 9.95 × 10−05 | 2.90 × 10−03 |
2016 | 9.00 × 10−04 | 3.74 × 10−04 | 1.11 × 10−04 | 1.29 × 10−03 | 1.91 × 10−04 | 1.02 × 10−04 | 2.97 × 10−03 | ||
Eutrophication potential (EP) | kg N e | 2017 | 1.94 × 10−04 | 2.61 × 10−05 | 6.92 × 10−06 | 1.51 × 10−05 | 9.91 × 10−06 | 1.46 × 10−05 | 2.67 × 10−04 |
2016 | 2.03 × 10−04 | 2.61 × 10−05 | 6.92 × 10−06 | 1.53 × 10−05 | 1.03 × 10−05 | 1.58 × 10−05 | 2.78 × 10−04 | ||
Total primary energy (TPE) | MJ | 2017 | 2.92 | 6.17 | 1.83 | 1.62 | 1.83 | 3.99 × 10−01 | 1.48 × 10+01 |
2016 | 3.06 | 6.17 | 1.83 | 1.63 | 1.91 | 3.79 × 10−01 | 1.50 × 10+01 | ||
Freshwater consumption (FWC) | kg | 2017 | 1.69 × 10+02 | 2.00 | 3.08 × 10−01 | 9.99 × 10−03 | 1.03 | 3.28 | 1.75 × 10+02 |
2016 | 1.77 × 10+02 | 2.00 | 3.08 × 10−01 | 1.01 × 10−02 | 1.08 | 3.14 | 1.83 × 10+02 | ||
Global warming potential (GWP100) | CO2e | 2017 | 2.10 × 10−01 | 2.49 × 10−01 | 5.82 × 10−02 | 9.15 × 10−02 | 8.14 × 10−02 | 2.11 × 10−02 | 7.11 × 10−01 |
2016 | 2.20 × 10−01 | 2.49 × 10−01 | 5.82 × 10−02 | 9.25 × 10−02 | 8.50 × 10−02 | 2.00 × 10−02 | 7.24 × 10−01 |
3.2 Other impact categories
3.3 The effect of co-product allocation methods on almond production, processing, and almond milk impacts
Life cycle stage | Impact | Unit | Baseline | Alternative | % Change |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Almond meat production (cradle-to-gate) | FWC | kg H2O/kg almond | 4520 | 4630 | 2% |
GWP100 | kg CO2e/kg almond | 2.77 | 1.03 | − 169% | |
Processing to meal (gate-to-gate) | FWC | kg H2O/kg meal | 3.33 | 3.10 | − 8% |
GWP100 | kg CO2e/kg meal | 2.39 | 2.18 | − 10% | |
Milk production (gate-to-gate) | FWC | kg H2O/48 oz. (1.42 L) milk | 8.07 | 7.49 | − 8% |
GWP100 | kg CO2e/48 oz. (1.42 L) milk | 0.520 | 0.537 | 3% | |
Almond milk (cradle-to-gate) | FWC | kg H2O/48 oz. milk | 175 | 180 | 3% |
GWP100 | kg CO2e/48 oz. (1.42 L) milk | 0.711 | 0.674 | − 5% |
3.4 Applying a water scarcity method to the FWC estimate
4 Discussion
4.1 Comparing almond milk to other plant-based milks and dairy milk
Source | Process stage | Milk type | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pea | Almond | Soy | Coconut | Oat | Dairy | ||
This study (2017 results) | Farming | – | 0.11 | – | – | – | – |
Processing | – | 0.28 | – | – | – | – | |
Total | – | 0.39 | – | – | – | – | |
Clune et al. (2017) | Total | – | 0.58 | 1.21 | 0.58 | – | 1.90 |
Florén et al. (2013) | Farming | – | – | – | – | 0.11 | 1.52 |
Processing | – | – | – | – | 0.42 | 0.18 | |
Total | – | – | – | – | 0.54 | 1.70 | |
Grant and Hick (2017) | Total | – | 0.40 | 0.24 | – | – | 1.72 |
Henderson and Unnasch (2017)a | Farming | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.04 | – | – | 1.81 |
Processing | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.37 | – | – | 0.16 | |
Total | 0.44 | 0.39 | 0.42 | – | – | 1.97 | |
Farming | – | – | – | – | – | 1.67 | |
Processing | – | – | – | – | – | 0.13 | |
Total | – | – | – | – | – | 1.80 | |
Granarolo (2016) | Farming | – | – | 0.67 | – | – | – |
Processing | – | – | 0.38 | – | – | – | |
Total | – | – | 1.05 | – | – | – |
4.2 Evaluating the potential for reducing impacts through packaging choices
Impact category | No recycled content | 50% recycled content | 100% recycled content | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unsweetened almond milk impact | Unsweetened almond milk impact | Percent reduction | Unsweetened almond milk impact | Percent reduction | |
TPE (MJ) | 14.9 | 12.7 | − 14.4% | 10.6 | − 28.8% |
GWP (kg CO2e) | 0.71 | 0.64 | − 9.6% | 0.58 | − 19.0% |
Smog (kg O3eq) | 2.46 × 10−2 | 2.35 × 10−2 | − 4.6% | 2.23 × 10−2 | − 9.3% |
EP (kg Neq) | 2.69 × 10−4 | 3.10 × 10−4 | 15.2% | 3.51 × 10−4 | 30.3% |