Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Carbon footprint of sugar production in Mexico

Carlos A. García a, *, Edgar S. García-Trevin
~ o b, Noe Aguilar-Rivera c, Cynthia Armenda
riz a
a
Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de M exico, Michoacan, Mexico
b
Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
c gicas y Agropecuarias Universidad Veracruzana, Km. 1 carretera Pen
Facultad de Ciencias Biolo ~ uela Amatlan S/N, Colonia Pen
~ uela, C.P. 94945, Co
rdoba
Veracruz, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Global warming, caused mainly by increased worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases, is currently
Received 22 October 2014 one of the greatest threats to the environment and human societies. Mexico has set an ambitious goal
Received in revised form of reducing 30% of its greenhouse gases emissions by year 2020. The sugar agroindustry has been
23 September 2015
identified as one of the opportunities for mitigating emissions in this country. The aim of this work is
Accepted 24 September 2015
Available online 9 October 2015
to contribute towards identifying policy measures and practices for low-carbon sugar production by
assessing the carbon footprint of sugar produced in four sugar mills in Mexico using a life cycle
assessment method. System boundaries include agricultural practices, sugarcane harvesting, cane
Keywords:
Global warming
milling and sugar conversion. The results show that sugar production has carbon footprint values in
Greenhouse gas emissions the range of 0.45e0.63 kg CO2e/kg sugar. In these four cases, the agricultural stage contributes the
Sugarcane cultivation majority of carbon emissions (59e74%). Most greenhouse gases emissions in the agricultural stage
Sugar mill were from fertilizer production, nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and biomass burning. The industrial
Cogeneration stage contributed with 14e30% of total greenhouse gases emissions, mainly due to fossil fuel and
Uncertainty analysis bagasse use. The carbon footprint value is particularly sensitive to nitrogen fertilization, nitrous oxide
emissions from the soil and sugarcane yields. Cogeneration in sugar mills could become an important
way to reduce the carbon footprint of sugar and to produce electricity with low carbon emissions. We
show the impact of different carbon footprint performance of sugar production process in Mexico. Data
used on this manuscript came from real field measurements, and our results are accompanied by
sensibility and uncertainty analyses. This is the first time that life cycle assessment has been used to
estimate the carbon footprint of sugar production in Mexico including agricultural, industrial and
transportation boundaries, to identify greenhouse gases mitigation opportunities. Studying techniques
for improving sugar cane yield, making fertilizer use more efficient, minimizing cane burning and
developing efficient cogeneration in sugar mills with bagasse as fuel is scientifically relevant. Applying
concrete public policy measures to these areas of opportunity would allow production of low carbon
sugar in Mexico. The results of this study may also be used as reference by other countries with similar
sugar production conditions.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Reversing the effects of environmental degradation caused by
human activities is one of the greatest challenges currently faced by
humanity (Rockstro €m et al., 2009). Global warming, which is
* Corresponding author. Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia,
Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me
xico, Antigua Carretera a Pa
tzcuaro No. 8701,
Colonia Ex Hacienda de San Jose  de la Huerta, P.C. 58190 Mexico. Tel.: þ52 443
6893500, Tel/fax.: þ52 443 3222719.
E-mail address: cgarcia@enesmorelia.unam.mx (C.A. García).
mainly caused by the increased use of energy derived from fossil
fuels, is one of the most concerning phenomena that could have
severe effects on the environment and human societies (IPCC,
2014a, 2013).
Mexico's Climate Change Law was enacted as part of this na-
tion's efforts to combat climate change (Diario Oficial de la
Federacio n, 2012). Here, an ambitious goal of reducing 30% of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by year 2020 was established.
This has led to the development of a number of studies that eval-
uate possibilities for mitigating GHG emission in this economy
(Johnson et al., 2010; Octaviano et al., n.d.; Veysey et al., n.d.). Some

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.113
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641
of these studies point towards the sugar agroindustry as an op-
portunity for GHG emission mitigation (Islas et al., 2007; Johnson
et al., 2010; Riegelhapt et al., 2012).
Mexico is the world's seventh largest sugarcane (Saccharum
officinarum) producer. Spanish settlers brought the first sugarcane
plants to Mexico from Cuba in the early 16th century, and the first
sugar mill was established in 1536 in the village of San Andres
Tuxtla, Veracruz. Nowadays, cultivation of sugarcane is concen-
trated in six different regions in Mexico, which provide sugarcane
to 54 sugar mills and two autonomous distilleries (UNC, 2014).
Around 61 million tons per year of sugarcane are cultivated in
780,254 ha, which produce nearly 7 million tons of sugar (3% of
worldwide production) and about 16.7 million liters (ML) of
ethanol. The sugarcane agroindustry represents 0.5% of Mexico's
gross domestic product (GDP), 2.5% of the manufacturing sector
and 11.5% of the primary sector. It also provides significant full time
and temporary employment for more than 2.2 million people in
227 municipalities (9.2% of all municipalities in Mexico) (Sentíes-
Herrera et al., 2014).
With the increasing threat of global warming and climate
change, minimizing carbon emissions during product elaboration
has become increasingly important in recent years (Fang et al.,
2014; Wiedmann and Minx, 2007). Researchers have quantified
GHG emissions using an indicator known as the carbon footprint
(CF), which is the sum of all direct and indirect GHG emissions
generated throughout the life cycle of a product (Wiedmann and
Minx, 2007). To evaluate the CF, a life cycle assessment (LCA)
method has been applied. LCA is a useful standardized method
(with ISO 14040 and 14044 standards) for estimating the envi-
ronmental impact of processes and products. This tool has been
widely employed to identify products with fewer negative impacts
on the environment, or to locate the production stages where the
greatest environmental impacts occur.
Numerous studies have been done in recent years involving the
use of LCA for carbon emissions quantification in agroindustry
products. Relevant studies have assessed the CF of sugar produced
from different feedstocks (De Figueiredo et al., 2010; Klenk et al.,
2012; Rein, 2010; Seabra et al., 2011; Yuttitham et al., 2011),
calculated carbon emissions of ethanol and electricity produced
from sugarcane (Campbell et al., 2009; Dunkelberg et al., 2014;
Khatiwada and Silveira, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2010; Ramjeawon,
2008; Seabra et al., 2011; Soam et al., 2015); compared environ-
mental impacts of sugarcane product diversification (Renouf et al.,
2013); and analyzed the influence of methodological variations on
results of carbon emissions (Cherubini and Strømman, 2011;
Cherubini et al., 2009; Plassmann et al., 2010).
The aim of this paper is to assess the CF of sugar produced in
four sugar mills in Mexico using LCA method. This is the first
assessment of how sugar production contributes towards carbon
emissions in Mexico that also identifies the main sources of GHG
emissions during the production cycle. Additionally, uncertainty
and sensitivity analysis were performed using Monte Carlo
Simulation, and two scenarios were developed to explore the
impact of efficient cogeneration on the CF of sugar production.
This information is useful because it contributes towards iden-
tifying concrete policy measures and practices for low-carbon
sugar production, which in turn brings Mexico closer to its
mitigation goals. The results of this study may also be used as
reference by other countries with similar sugar production
conditions.
2. Materials and methods
In this section we present the methods, data and information
sources used to calculate the carbon footprint (CF) in four case
2633
studies. We also explain the methods for performing uncertainty
and sensibility analysis, through which the changes in CF due to
variations in the initial system parameter values were calculated.
Finally, we explore the effects that efficient cogeneration in sugar
mills can have on the CF.
2.1. Cases
The criteria used to select the cases for assessment were: 1)
That the cases have similar sugarcane milling capacities; 2) That
they cover different geographic regions; 3) That data for all life
cycle stages were available for assessment. The latter criterion was
particularly important because in Mexico there are no databases
containing information on fuel consumption for agricultural and
transportation machinery. The assessment was limited to four
sugar mills that fulfill these criteria. Table 1 shows the location,
total industrialized area and mean sugar production of the four
case studies used to calculate the carbon footprint of sugar pro-
duction in Mexico. Note that these mills might not be a statisti-
cally representative sample of all mills in Mexico, since significant
differences exist in levels of technology in cane production (from
low to high mechanization and fertilization), in industrialized
area (ranging from about 2400e39,000 ha/y) and in net cane
crushed (229,000e2,200,000 ton cane/y).
Sugarcane is generally cultivated in five-year cycles followed by
replanting. Cane yields vary between 64 and 106 t/ha a year. Irri-
gation is by gravity or pumping (or both) while soil tillage is fully
mechanized and harvest is mostly manual in almost all our cases.
This last practice makes it necessary to burn sugarcane trash in the
fields before and after harvesting to ease the cutter's work and to
clear residues. Truck loading is mechanized.
The industrial process starts with sugarcane crushing to extract
juice, which is then clarified and concentrated. On the concentrated
juice, up to three successive crystallizations are carried out, fol-
lowed by separation of sucrose crystals and molasses by centrifu-
gation (sugar and molasses are produced in each centrifugation).
The latter can be used for ethanol production.
2.2. Life cycle assessment
The life cycle assessment (LCA) method can be used to measure
total environmental performance of a product from cradle to grave
(Khatiwada and Silveira, 2011). This method accounts for energy
and material inputs required in the development of a product as
well as by-products and emissions that occur during the production
process. In our four case studies, the system boundaries are
consistent with other studies and include agricultural practices,
sugarcane harvesting, cane milling and sugar conversion (Fig. 1)
(Khatiwada and Silveira, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2010; Yuttitham et al.,
2011).
The agricultural stage includes the following sources of emis-
sions: From fuel used for farm machinery, from the production of
fertilizers and pesticides, nitrogen monoxide (N2O) emissions from
nitrogen fertilizer volatilization (calculated as 1% of the N applied;
IPCC, 2006), emissions from energy for irrigation, from harvest
machinery and from sugarcane burning for harvesting. The indus-
trial stage (sugar milling and sugar conversion) includes emissions
from electricity generation and fuel use. Emissions from transport
correspond to the use of trucks for carrying sugarcane (Fig. 1).
CO2 emissions from biomass burning were considered to be
neutral since photosynthesis during plant growth involves carbon
fixation from the atmosphere (Khatiwada and Silveira, 2011). For
biomass combustion, only CH4 and N2O emissions were considered.
In all the cases studied, the agricultural fields had been cleared
prior to 1960, so land use change emissions were not included in
2634 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641

Table 1
Location, total industrialized area and mean sugar production of four case studies used to calculate the carbon footprint of sugar production in Mexico.

Sugar mill Ubication Mean industrialized area (ha) Mean production (ton sugar/y)

Central Motzorongo 18 280 3100 N, 96 430 4300 O Tezonapa, Veracruz 17,990 111,406
La Gloria 19 250 4200 N, 96 240 0100 O Úrsulo Galv
an, Veracruz 14,860 159,780
Tamazula 19 410 0500 N, 103 140 4300 O Tamazula, Jalisco 12,104 154,495
Emiliano Zapata 18 390 1300 N, 99 110 2300 O Zacatepec, Morelos 10,260 159,292

Emissions Emissions from Chemicals Electricity from Fuel

from inputs cane trash and lubricants the grid oil
burning

Transportation Stage
INPUTS: Sugar
Fertilizers Agricultural Stage Industrial Stage
Pesticides
Diesel
Molasses
Energy for Irrigation

Fuel Emisions
from fuel Bagasse Electricity Fuel oil
burning emissions emissions
emissions

Fig. 1. System boundaries, inputs, outputs and sources of greenhouse gas emissions used to calculate carbon footprint values.

the analysis (CNIAA, 2013). This approach is consistent with other
studies (Plassmann et al., 2010; Yuttitham et al., 2011).
The functional unit is defined as 1 kg of sugar at the sugar
mill gate. We considered just the main greenhouse gases, CO2,
CH4 and N2O (with global warming potential of 1, 23 and 296
respectively), considering a time horizon of 100 years (European
Commission, 2011). Other GHGs were excluded from the calcu-
lation since they contribute with only a small portion of global
emissions (about 2%) (IPCC, 2014b).
2.3. Data
Our study primarily encompasses agricultural practices in sug-
arcane farmland as presently adopted by cane farmers in the cases
listed in Table 1, as well as the prevailing industrial operations in
the respective sugar mills.
The following ten year data were obtained from the National
Union of “Can ~ eros” (UNC for its acronym in Spanish): Harvested
area (ha), sugarcane productivity (t/ha), sugar yield (t/ha), cane
mechanically harvested (%), cane mechanically loaded (%), burned
sugarcane for harvest (%), sugar mill yield (%), raw sugar pro-
duction (t), molasses production (t), external electricity use (kWh/
t cane) and petroleum consumed in sugar mills (L/t cane). Data on
agrochemical application and fuel consumption for agricultural
and transportation machinery are based on interviews and
questionnaires with sugarcane growers and sugar mill technicians
conducted during field visits, as well as personal communications
with experts. Emissions from inputs, cane burning and the electric
power grid were taken from the literature and from the BioGrace
model (European Commission, 2011) (see Tables 2 and 3 for
details).
2.4. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses
The results of a LCA study can be affected by different sources of
uncertainty such as the quality of the available data, methodolog-
ical choices, initial assumptions made on the allocation rules and
system boundaries definition (Cellura et al., 2011). In this study, the
uncertainty assessment was performed using Monte Carlo simu-
lation, which is a popular approach in LCA (Bjo €rklund, 2002). This
method is a computational-based technique that relies on the
repetition of several individual model iterations, where each iter-
ation is randomly constructed using a set of values selected from
the probability distribution of each parameter.
The uncertainty assessment comprised five stages. The first
stage is the procedure of gathering all available information from
the sugarcane production process, while the second stage focuses
on the selection of the most relevant variables or factors for the
sugarcane production life cycle assessment (see Section 2.3). The
third stage is the characterization of the corresponding probability
distributions for the selected variables. In this study, this charac-
terization is based on information found in (Seabra et al., 2011) (see
Table 4). Finally, the fourth and fifth stages are the Monte Carlo
simulation and the corresponding analysis of its results. The
number of simulations chosen for the Monte Carlo procedure was
set to one million.
The Monte Carlo analysis described above is complemented
with an assessment of the contribution of each parameter towards
the overall uncertainty of the sugarcane production process. For
this purpose, we performed a single-parameter sensitivity analysis
which is the usual procedure within the LCA community, used
commonly to understand the uncertainty propagation in a given
process (Steen, 1997). We varied each of the parameters from
Table 4 separately, using their associated distribution and keeping
the remaining parameters constant. We then obtained the corre-
sponding total GHG emissions and estimated their minimum and
maximum values. For further detail in uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis method we refer the reader to the Supplementary
Material.
2.5. Cogeneration scenarios
Sugar mills may become net producers of electricity through the
combustion of sugarcane bagasse (Brizmohun et al., 2015;
Ramjeawon, 2008; Rinco  n et al., 2014). These surpluses, or net
electricity production (NEP), can range from 60 kWh/t cane to
140 kWh/t cane in boilers with high pressures and temperatures
(Khatiwada et al., 2012; Seabra et al., 2011). Cogeneration could be
important for the economic sustainability of the sugarcane industry
by providing additional income and reducing its exposure to vol-
atile global sugar prices (Renouf et al., 2013). Two scenarios were
developed in order to explore the effect that installing efficient
 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641 2635

Table 2
Parameters of the agricultural, transport and industrial stages used to calculate carbon footprint values in our four case studies.

Sugar mill and supply zones Central Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata Source

Agricultural stage (sugarcane production)

Harvested area (ha) 17,990 14,860 12,104 10,260 (UNC, 2014)
Sugarcane productivity (ton/ha) 64.4 89.1 106.4 106.5 (UNC, 2014)
Bagasse in cane (%) 26.8 27.5 31.3 30.2 (UNC, 2014)
Pumping irrigation (% of harvested area) 5 18 25 10 Questionnaires
Energy for irrigation kWh/ha 219 1185 1591 307 Questionnaires
Trash burning (% of harvested area) 95 91 51 89 (UNC, 2014)
Dry based matter in trash (%) 14a (Seabra et al., 2011)
Diesel consumption (L/ha) 131b 149 154 143 (García et al., 2011), Questionnaires
N fertilization rate (kg/ha) 105 116 210 180 Questionnaires
% of N to N2O 1 1 1 1 (IPCC, 2006)
P2O5 fertilization rate (kg/ha) 51 61 70 45 (CONADESUCA, n.d.; García et al., 2011)
K2O fertilization rate (kg/ha) 153 94 140 30 (CONADESUCA, n.d.; García et al., 2011)
CaCO fertilization rate (kg/ha) 1000 1000 1000 0 Questionnaires, personal communication
Pesticides application rate (kg active ingredient/ha) 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.5 Questionnaires
Transportation stage
Diesel consumption (L/ton) 2.2 1.9 2.9 2.2 Questionnaires
Industrial stage
Sugarcane crushed (ton/year) 1,001,650 1,324,335 1,218,769 1,200,334 (UNC, 2014)
Sugar recovery (kg sugar/ha) 7181 10,489 13,068 13,062 (UNC, 2014)
Molasses production (ton) 42,230 45,316 40,551 40,127 (UNC, 2014)
Fuel oil consumption (L/ton cane) 4.5 0 2.9 2.0 (UNC, 2014)
Electricity from the grid (kWh) 221,083 1,529,395 3,030,910 2,628,077 (UNC, 2014)
Lubricants (kg/ha)c 0.66 0.91 1.1 1.1 Calculated
Lime (kg/ha)d 57 78 94 94 Calculated
a
Includes only CH4 and N2O emissions.
b
We consider an ethanol density of 0.984 kg/L.
c
Calculation based on 10.3 g/ton cane (Seabra et al., 2011).
d
Calculation based on 880 g/ton cane (Seabra et al., 2011).

Table 3
Emission factors from the agricultural, transport and industrial stages of sugarcane production. These were used to calculate carbon footprint values.

Sugar mill and supply zones Central Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata Source

Agricultural stage (sugarcane production)

Emissions from electrical grid (kg CO2e/kWh) (García et al., 2011)
0.489
Cane trash burning emission factor (kg CO2e/kg dry matter) (Macedo et al., 2008)
0.083
Diesel emission factor (gCO2e/MJ) (European Comission, 2011)
87.64a
N fertilizer emission factor (kg CO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
5.9
P2O5 fertilizer emission factor (gCO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
1010.7
K2O fertilizer emission factor (gCO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
576
CaCO fertilizer emission factor (gCO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
129.5
Pesticides emission factor (gCO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
10,971
Industrial stage
Fuel oil emission factor (gCO2e/MJ) (European Comission, 2011)
84.98b
Bagasse emission factor (kg CO2e/kg) (Khatiwada and Silveira, 2011)
0.025
Lubricants emission factor (gCO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
0.947
Lime emission factor (kg CO2e/kg) (European Comission, 2011)
1030.2
a
We use a LHV of 35.9 MJ/L.
b
Considering a fuel oil LHV of 39.3 MJ/L.

boilers and selling surplus electricity could have on the carbon
footprint of the cases studied. The first scenario considers sales of
NEP to the national grid of 60 kWh/t cane, and the second one
considers a NEP of 117 kWh/t cane (based on Guerra et al., 2014).
The resulting CFs of these scenarios for our case studies were
calculated applying allocation of emissions per energy content and
economic value to the sugar, molasses and NEP. Table 5 shows total
production of sugar, molasses and electricity in our two cogene-
ration scenarios. Lower heating values and economic costs are also
shown.
2636 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641

Table 4
Probability distributions of input parameters used in the Monte Carlo simulation for calculating the carbon footprint of our four case studies.

Parameter Distribution Values

Central Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata

Mean/min Standar Mean/min Standar Mean/min Standar Mean/min Standar

deviation/max deviation/max deviation/max deviation/max

Sugarcane yield (t/ha) Normal 64.4 7.4 89.1 6.9 106.4 5.4 106.5 4.7
Bagasse in cane Normal 26.8 1.1 27.5 0.6 31.3 0.8 30.2 2.2
Energy for irrigation None 219.5 1185.2 1591.2 307.3
Trash burning Triangular 0.90 1.00 0.86 0.96 0.48 0.54 0.85 0.93
(% of area)
Diesel consumption Triangular 131 260 131 260 131 260 131 260
(L/ha)
N application (kg/ha) Triangular 84 210 84 210 84 210 84 210
N2O emission factor (%) Triangular 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4 4 0.4 4
P2O5 application (kg/ha) Triangular 45 70 45 70 45 70 45 70
K2O application (kg/ha) Triangular 30 156 30 156 30 156 30 156
CaCO application (kg/ha) None 1000 1000 1000 0
Pesticides application Normal 2.5 0.707 2.500 0.707 2.500 0.707 2.500 0.707
(kg/ha)
Diesel for sugarcane Normal 2.175 0.727 1.900 0.361 2.950 0.354 2.200 1.414
transportation (L/t)
Sugar production Normal 11.2 0.5 11.8 0.2 12.3 0.2 12.2 0.5
(%/t cane)
Fuel oil None 4.4864 0 2.9 2.017
consumption (L/t)
Electricity from Normal 221,083 126,610 1,529,395 1,355,456 3,030,911 664,494 2,628,078 1,173,047
the grid (kWh)

Table 5
Total production of sugar, molasses and electricity in our two cogeneration scenarios (net electricity production of 60 kwh/t cane and 117 kWh/t cane). Lower heating values
and economic costs are also shown, as they were used to allocate emissions values.

Central Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata

Average production LHV (GJ/t) Economic value (USD/t)

Sugar (ton) 129,823 156,154 158,140 132,853 16.7 657

Molasses (ton) 42,230 45,316 40,551 40,126 7.2 172
Electricity
60 kWh/ton cane Annual surplus (GWh/y) 70 79 77 66 e 101
117 kWh/ton cane Annual surplus (GWh/y) 162 185 180 153 e 101

3. Results which represents nearly 30% of total emissions in three cases. The
industrial stage for La Gloria sugar mill had the lowest contribution
In this section we present the results of the carbon footprint (CF) of carbon emissions (14%).
evaluation for the case studies described and analyze the main The CF value of the agricultural stage for each sugar mill is
sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. We also present the shown in Fig. 3. This includes: Cane trash burning for manual
results of the uncertainty and sensibility analyses, where we harvest, diesel consumption for machinery, irrigation, fertilizer
identified the parameters that have the greatest influence on CF
values. Finally, we discuss the results of the cogeneration scenarios
and how these may influence the CF. Sugarcane producƟon Sugarcane transportaƟon Sugar mill
0.7

3.1. Carbon footprint

0.6

Fig. 2 shows how the three stages of the sugarcane production

0.5
process, agricultural, transportation and industrial, contribute to-
kgCO2e/kg sugar

wards total carbon emissions (kg CO2e). Differences are observed 0.4
when we compare the CF from the four different mills: La Gloria
mill reported the lowest CF (0.45 kg CO2e/kg sugar) and Motzor- 0.3
ongo mill presented the highest (0.63 kg CO2e/kg sugar).
Amongst these production stages, it is the agricultural stage that 0.2
presents the highest contribution to the CF in all cases (in a range of
0.29e0.36 kg CO2e/kg sugar), a bulk that translates into 59e74% of 0.1

total CO2e emissions for the sugarcane production process (Fig. 2).
Sugarcane transportation from field to sugar mill reflected the 0
Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata
lowest contribution of carbon (0.05e0.08 kg CO2e/kg sugar)
reaching 13% of overall CO2e emissions. Finally, the industrial stage Fig. 2. Contribution of each stage towards the carbon footprint (kg CO2e/kg sugar) of
(sugar mill) had emissions between 0.06 and 0.18 kg CO2e/kg sugar, sugarcane production in our four case studies.
 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641 2637

Cane trash burning Diesel consumpƟon IrrigaƟon N ApplicaƟon

N2O emissions P2O5 ApplicaƟon K2O ApplicaƟon CaO ApplicaƟon
PesƟcides Sugarcane transportaƟon
0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
kgCO2e/kg sugar

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata

Fig. 3. Carbon footprint (kg CO2e/kg sugar) from the agricultural stage of sugar production in our four case studies.

application and N2O emissions from nitrogenous fertilizers. When
transportation is not considered, cane trash burning represents the
highest portion of CO2 emissions, nearly a third of total carbon.
Although this tendency is explicit for Motzorongo, La Gloria and
Emiliano Zapata mills, Tamazula mill showed that only 14% of its
GHG emissions came from cane trash burning due to its lower
manually harvested area.
When considering fertilizer application (P2O5, K2O, N, CaO) and
N2O emissions, we find that these factors contribute with 40e50%
of GHG emissions from the agricultural stage. Pesticides application
contributes only marginally to the CF, with 1% of total CO2e emis-
sions. In short, the mayor contributors towards the carbon footprint
of the agricultural stage are cane trash burning, fertilizer applica-
tion, N2O emissions, fossil fuel use and energy for irrigation; these
findings are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4 shows how the industrial stage contributes towards the
CF of the sugarcane mills. This stage includes fuel oil consumption,
Fig. 4. Carbon footprint (in kg CO2e/kg sugar) from the industrial stage of sugar pro-
duction in our four case studies.
electricity from the grid, bagasse burning, chemicals and lubri-
cants used during the sugarcane production process. Fuel oil
consumption is a central parameter for Motzorongo, Tamazula
and Emiliano Zapata mills: It represents 41e66% of total GHGs
emissions from the industrial stage. La Gloria mill reports no fuel
oil consumption.
Use of electricity from the grid and application of chemicals and
lubricants contributed with 0.01e0.06 kg CO2e/kg sugar for overall
mills. In our case studies, most of the electricity is obtained from a
cogeneration process where bagasse is used to generate energy,
and only about 5% of total electricity consumption comes from de
grid. The four mills show the same contribution in emissions from
bagasse burning (0.06 kg CO2e/kg sugar), 10e13% of the total CF.
3.2. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses
The main results from the Monte Carlo simulation are shown in
Fig. 5 as normalized histograms representing the aggregated
emissions for the agricultural and industrial stages, as well as for
the total amount of emissions from the whole process. The first
observation from these figures is that, for the four sugar mills, all
the analyzed emissions have a lognormal distribution. An addi-
tional observation is the fact that, for the industrial stage and total
GHG emissions, Motzorongo mill reports distributions with the
largest variation, and consequently its emissions have the largest
uncertainty. Regarding the agricultural stage, it can be seen from
Fig. 5 that although the ranges of the resulting emissions are
different for the four mills, the width of the distributions is very
similar. This means that in the four sugar mills evaluated the level
of uncertainty associated with the agricultural stage is comparable.
Fig. 6 shows the sensitivity analysis performed with regards to
the variation in total GHG emissions due to changes in each of the
corresponding selected variables. While the same scale is used on
the x-axis, the order of the parameters in the y-axis is different for
the four sugar mills assessed. Motzorongo is the mill with the
largest sensitivity in CF results to changes in sugar production,
sugarcane yield, N2O emission factor and amount of nitrogen (N)
2638 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641

0.15 0.35

0.3 Industrial Stage

Agricultural Stage 0.25

0.1

Probability

Probability
0.2

0.15
0.05
0.1

0.05

0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
kgCO2e/kgsugar kgCO2e/kgsugar
0.1

0.08
Transport Total
0.1
0.06
Probability

Probability
0.04
0.05

0.02

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
kgCO2e/kgsugar kgCO2e/kgsugar

Motzorongo La Gloria Tamazula Emiliano Zapata

Fig. 5. Monte Carlo simulation results (kg CO2e/kg sugar) for carbon emissions from sugar production in our four case studies.

Fig. 6. Results of the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis (in kg CO2e/kg sugar), reflecting sensitivity to variation in parameter values for our four case studies.

application. For all four mills, the parameters to which the final
emissions are more sensitive are all within the agricultural stage,
which means that the carbon footprint of sugar production is
mostly influenced by the parameters of the agricultural stage
(mainly sugarcane yield, N2O emissions and N application).
3.3. Cogeneration scenarios
Results of GHG emissions allocation to sugarcane by-products
are presented in Table 6. It is important to note that the alloca-
tion of emissions to molasses and electricity reduces the carbon
 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641
Table 6
Greenhouse gas emissions allocated to sugar, molasses and electricity production in our two cogeneration scenarios.
Central Motzorongo La Gloria
Energy Economic Energy
content value content
60 kWh/ton cane export
Sugar kg CO2e/kg/(% allocation) 0.50/(80%) 0.54/(86%) 0.36/(81%)
Molasses kg CO2e/kg/(% allocation) 0.17/(11%) 0.14/(7%) 0.17/(10%)
Electricity kg CO2e/kWh/(% allocation) 0.108/(9%) 0.082/(7%) 0.082/9%)
117 kWh/ton cane export
Sugar kg CO2e/kg/(% allocation) 0.46/(73%) 0.50/(80%) 0.33/(75%)
Molasses kg CO2e/kg/(% allocation) 0.20/(10%) 0.13/(7%) 0.16/(9%)
Electricity kg CO2e/kWh/(% allocation) 0.196/(17%) 0.151/(13%) 0.147/(16%)
footprint of sugar, resulting in values between 0.36 and
0.54 kg CO2e/kg sugar with a net electricity production (NEP) of
60 kWh/t cane (with the same amount of bagasse). When we
consider a NEP value of 117 kWh/t cane, the CF ranges between 0.33
and 0.46 kg CO2e/kg sugar. The method of allocation of emissions
by economic value produces slightly higher values of CF for sugar
(nearly 8% higher) compared to allocation by energy content. Ac-
cording to our method, electricity generation from our NEP sce-
narios would have emissions in a range of 0.082e0.196 kg CO2e/
kWh for our four cases (see Table 6).
4. Discussion
The results present carbon footprint values for sugarcane pro-
duction within a range of 0.45e0.63 kg CO2e/kg sugar. Of the four
cases studied, Motzorongo mill generated the most carbon emis-
sions and La Gloria mill the fewest. In these four cases, the agri-
cultural stage contributes with the greatest portion of the CF values
(59e74% of total emissions), followed by the industrial stage
(16e32%) and finally the transportation stage (10e13%).
The CF values of sugar for our case studies are relatively higher
than what has previously been reported for sugar produced in other
countries. CF values reported for sugar production in Brazil are
between 0.23 and 0.24 kg CO2e/kg sugar (De Figueiredo et al., 2010;
Seabra et al., 2011); for Mauritius, the CF reaches 0.255 kg CO2e/kg
sugar (Plassmann et al., 2010) and in Thailand is the CF is within the
range of our Mexican case studies, 0.55 kg CO2e/kg sugar
(Yuttitham et al., 2011).
For these international CF values, as well as our case studies, the
greatest emissions output occurs during the agricultural stage. In
our four cases, 53e68% of agricultural stage emissions were due to
the combination of nitrogenous fertilizer use, N2O emissions and
cane burning for manual harvest. These processes represent in turn
38e49% of the total carbon footprint for the sugarcane production
process. Yuttitham et al. (2011), De Figueiredo et al. (2010) and
Seabra et al. (2011) also reported that the main contributor to the CF
in their analyses was the agricultural stage, including biomass
burning, fertilizer application, field emissions (including N2O) and
fossil fuel use.
It is interesting to note that for cases reported in Brazil,
nitrogenous fertilizers are applied in lower quantities compared to
what is used in Mexico in all cases (0.777 kg N/t cane in Brazil
versus 1.3e2.0 kg N/t cane in Mexico; Seabra et al., 2011), and cane
yield is higher in those Brazilian cases than for Motzorongo mill and
slightly lower than La Gloria mill. This would indicate that there is
an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from nitrogenous fertil-
izers. Similar opportunities must be identified and exploited, such
as maintaining the C/N ratio at an adequate level, considering direct
application of press mud cake (or previously composted), incor-
porating vermicomposting, manures and green manuring as trash
2639
Tamazula Emiliano Zapata
Economic Energy Economic Energy Economic
value content value content value
0.39/(87%) 0.46/(8%) 0.49/(88%) 0.38/(81%) 0.42/(87%)
0.11/(7%) 0.25/(9%) 0.16/(6%) 0.18/(10%) 0.12/(7%)
0.063(6%) 0.099/(9%) 0.083/(6%) 0.089/(9%) 0.068/(6%)
0.36/(81%) 0.42/(76%) 0.46/(82%) 0.35/(75%) 0.38/(82%)
0.11/(6%) 0.23/(8%) 0.15/(6%) 0.16/(10%) 0.11/(6%)
0.115(13%) 0.177/(16%) 0.152/(12%) 0.159/(15%) 0.124/(12%)
(tops and leaves) into the soils. There are other possibilities such as
establishing legume intercropping as a source of organic nutrients,
increasing diversity of crop rotations, use of biofertilizers and ze-
olites, among others (Prado et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013).
Emissions from cane burning for manual harvest contribute
with 8e20% of total CF values for our case studies. This activity
generates a considerable amount of emissions in Brazil
(0.048 kg CO2/kg sugar), but these are still significantly lower than
three of our Mexican case studies where CF values are as high as
0.10 kg CO2/kg sugar. One of the reasons behind this difference is
that some of Brazil's emissions from burning are assigned to the
ethanol production process, and not to sugarcane production. An
additional reason is that in Brazil, cane is burned for manual har-
vest in 65% of the total harvest area, whereas in three of the
Mexican case studies, 89e95% of the area is used for burning.
Tamazula mill is the exception where cane is burned only in 51% of
the total harvest area, and therefore it presents the lowest CF
(0.05 kg CO2/kg sugar) for this agricultural activity.
Sugar cane burning could be substituted by a method known as
green harvest, where all or part of the straw is left on the soil.
According to some studies, green harvest can potentially reduce
GHG emissions (Capaz et al., 2013; De Figueiredo and La Scala Jr.,
2011; De Oliveira Bordonal et al., 2012). This harvest method has
other advantages, such as preventing liberation of gasses and
polluting particles, with a consequential improvement of nearby
populations' health conditions (Galdos et al., 2013); decreasing
erosion; increasing land fertility; reducing soil evaporation, which
in turn improves water use efficiency, among others (Leal et al.,
2013).
Other sources of emissions in the agricultural stage are fuel use
in agricultural activities and energy use for irrigation. In order to
diminish emissions from diesel use in agricultural work and sug-
arcane transportation, it would be important to explore no-till
agricultural as an alternative (De Oliveira Bordonal et al., 2012).
Implementing drip irrigation, an efficient water use alternative,
would be a highly important strategy to mitigate emissions from
energy used for irrigation.
Estimated emissions for sugarcane transportation from crop
field to sugar mill are less relevant and very similar in the four mills
studied (10e13% of their total GHG emissions). In order to reduce
these GHG emissions, some useful suggestions include improving
the roads, fostering the use of trains for sugarcane transportation,
as well as refurbishing trucks, loaders and harvesters (Tieppo et al.,
2014; Mele et al., 2011).
The industrial stage of sugarcane production contributes in a
lesser degree to total emissions. Sugar milling was found to
contribute with nearly 30% of CO2 emissions from the industrial
stage. The only exception was La Gloria mill, where this process has
been improved by increasing thermal and energy efficiency, with a
resulting elimination of fuel oil use. On the other hand, Motzorongo
2640 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641
mill showed the highest emissions from sugarcane processing (31%
of its total GHG emissions), mainly due to the high use of fuel oil as
supplementary fuel for heat and electricity generation.
In the case of Thailand's sugar industry (Yuttitham et al., 2011),
the carbon footprint of its industrial stage (0.06 kg CO2/kg sugar) is
significantly lower than the corresponding CF for three of our
Mexican case studies (0.07e0.20 kg CO2/kg sugar). This situation
can be explained by the lack of supplementary fossil fuel use for
heat and electricity during the industrial process in Thailand. This
can be confirmed by the fact that, as mentioned above, La Gloria
mill does not consume any additional fossil fuels during the in-
dustrial stage, hence its CF value for this stage (0.07 kg CO2/kg
sugar) is very similar to what has been found in Thailand. This
effectively shows that taking action to eliminate fossil fuel use in
sugar mills will contribute to minimize their carbon footprint.
The agricultural stage is not only associated with the greatest
amount of GHG emissions, but it is also the stage with the largest
uncertainty in the estimation of emissions. This uncertainty is
mainly explained by the application of nitrogen fertilizers to the
crop. As was noted in Section 3.2, CF values are especially sensitive
to variations regarding sugarcane yield, N2O emissions and fertil-
ization with nitrogen. These results confirm that actions taken to
decrease nitrogenous fertilizer amounts without affecting sugar-
cane yield are highly important.
Carbon footprint values for sugar production could be mini-
mized by implementing efficient cogeneration in sugar mills
through installation of high-temperature and pressure boilers
which use bagasse as fuel, potentially reaching CF values of
0.33e0.54 kg CO2e/kg sugar. This could also represent an oppor-
tunity for low-carbon electricity generation with emissions that
range between 0.082 and 0.196 kg CO2e/kWh, which is significantly
cleaner than what is generated with fossil fuels in Mexico
(1.090 kg CO2e/kWh for coal, 0.959 kg CO2e/kWh for fuel oil and
468 kg CO2e/kWh for natural gas; estimations done with data from
Santoyo-Castelazo et al., 2011). Efficient cogeneration has the po-
tential to minimize the carbon footprint of Mexican sugar mills
depending on their net electricity production (NEP). This is a
promising option that must be studied in greater detail.
5. Conclusions
In this article we carried out an assessment of the carbon
footprint (CF) of sugar production for four cases in Mexico using
life cycle assessment (LCA) method. We also made uncertainty
and sensitivity analyses for the main parameters in sugar pro-
duction, which is relevant since uncertainty and variability have
been discussed as important aspects to consider within the field of
life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. We also explored two
cogeneration scenarios for net energy production (NEP) and its
effect on the CF. The results show that CF values vary within a
range of 0.45e0.63 kg CO2e/kg sugar, which are relatively higher
than other reported cases from other countries, which range from
0.234 in Brazil to 0.55 in Thailand. The agricultural stage con-
tributes with the largest portion of the CF of sugar production in
all four cases. The main sources of GHG emissions in the agricul-
tural stage were from the manufacturing and application of fer-
tilizers, fossil fuel use, energy use for irrigation and biomass
burning. This stage also presents the greatest uncertainty in re-
sults according to the Monte Carlo simulation, mainly due to
nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing and N2O emissions. The
sensibility analysis shows that sugarcane yield on the field is also
important. The industrial stage is second in importance regarding
emissions: 14e30% of total GHG emissions occur in this stage. This
is due to the use of complementary fuel oil for heat and electricity
generation, followed by emissions of CH4 and N2O from bagasse
combustion in the boilers. Finally, the transportation stage only
represents between 10 and 13% of total emissions.
Few systematic scientific efforts have been made to analyze the
potential role of the Mexican sugar agroindustry in quantifying
GHG emissions in sugar production. This is relevant since Mexico's
ambitious goal of a 30% reduction of GHG emissions by year 2020
was established. The main opportunities for GHG emission miti-
gation in the sugar agroindustry can be found in the agricultural
stage, specifically with regards to minimizing nitrogenous fertilizer
use and limiting cane burning for manual harvest. Within the in-
dustrial stage it is important to eliminate fossil fuel use and pro-
mote efficient cogeneration. Studying such techniques for
improving sugar cane yield, making fertilizer use more efficient,
minimizing cane burning and developing efficient cogeneration in
sugar mills with bagasse as fuel is scientifically relevant. Applying
concrete public policy measures to these areas of opportunity
would allow production of low carbon sugar in Mexico. The results
of this study may also be used as reference by other countries with
similar sugar production conditions.
Acknowledgments
Carlos García wishes to thank the Direccion General de Asuntos
del Personal Acade mico of Universidad Nacional Auto noma de
Mexico for the financial support via a Postdoctoral Fellowship
Program (No. 505002358).
The authors also want to thank Andrea Alatorre and Alfredo
Fuentes Gutierrez for the edition, English review and conceptual
contributions to the manuscript.
Thank you as well to the three anonymous reviewers and the
associate editor for their valuable comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material related to this article can be found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.113.
References
€rklund, A.E., 2002. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int. J. Life
Bjo
Cycle Assess. 7, 64e72.
Brizmohun, R., Ramjeawon, T., Azapagic, A., 2015. Life cycle assessment of electricity
generation in Mauritius. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1727e1734.
Campbell, J.E., Lobell, D.B., Field, C.B., 2009. Greater transportation energy and GHG
offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science 324, 1055e1057.
Capaz, R.S., Carvalho, V.S.B., Nogueira, L.A.H., 2013. Impact of mechanization and
previous burning reduction on GHG emissions of sugarcane harvesting opera-
tions in Brazil. Appl. Energy 102, 220e228. Special Issue on Advances in sus-
tainable biofuel production and use e XIX International ́ Symposium on Alcohol
Fuels e ISAF.
Cellura, M., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., 2011. Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty
in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 15, 4697e4705.
Cherubini, F., Bird, N.D., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B., Woess-
Gallasch, S., 2009. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bio-
energy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 53, 434e447.
Cherubini, F., Strømman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems:
state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 437e451.
CNIAA, 2013. Sugar Industry Mexican Handbook. Edited by CNIAA. 495 p.
CONADESUCA. Sistema de Informacio n de Costos de Produccio n de Can~ a de Azucar.
De Figueiredo, E.B., La Scala Jr., N., 2011. Greenhouse gas balance due to the con-
version of sugarcane areas from burned to green harvest in Brazil. Agric. Eco-
syst. Environ. 141, 77e85.
De Figueiredo, E.B., Panosso, A.R., Roma ~o, R., La Scala Jr., N., 2010. Research green-
house gas emission associated with sugar production in southern Brazil. Carbon
Balance Manag. 5, 3e7.
De Oliveira Bordonal, R., de Figueiredo, E.B., La Scala, N., 2012. Greenhouse gas
balance due to the conversion of sugarcane areas from burned to green harvest,
considering other conservationist management practices. GCB Bioenergy 4,
846e858.
Diario Oficial de la Federacio n, 2012. Ley General de Cambio Clima tico.
 C.A. García et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2632e2641
Dunkelberg, E., Finkbeiner, M., Hirschl, B., 2014. Sugarcane ethanol production in
Malawi: measures to optimize the carbon footprint and to avoid indirect
emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 71, 37e45.
European Commission, 2011. Biograce GHG Calculation Tool 4b. Intelligence Energy
Europe. http://www.biograce.net/.
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., de Snoo, G.R., 2014. Theoretical exploration for the combi-
nation of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: overview of a
footprint family. Ecol. Indic. 36, 508e518.
Galdos, M., Cavalett, O., Seabra, J.E.A., Nogueira, L.A.H., Bonomi, A., 2013. Trends in
global warming and human health impacts related to Brazilian sugarcane
ethanol production considering black carbon emissions. Appl. Energy 104,
576e582.
García, C.A., Fuentes, A., Hennecke, A., Riegelhaupt, E., Manzini, F., Masera, O., 2011.
Life-cycle and greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane
ethanol production in Mexico. Applied Energy 88 (6), 2088e2097.
Guerra, J.P.M., Coleta Jr., J.R., Arruda, L.C.M., Silva, G.A., Kulay, L., 2014. Comparative
analysis of electricity cogeneration scenarios in sugarcane production by LCA.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 814e825.
IPCC, 2014a. Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Part A:
Global and Sectorial Aspects.
IPCC, 2014b. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report.
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013 the Physical Science Basis.
IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use, vol. 4.
Islas, J., Manzini, F., Masera, O., 2007. A prospective study of bioenergy use in
Mexico. Energy 32, 2306e2320.
Johnson, T.M., Alatorre, C., Romo, Z., Liu, F., 2010. Me xico: Estudio Sobre la Dis-
minucio  n de Emisiones de Carbono (MEDEC). The World Bank, Washington,
DC.
Khatiwada, D., Seabra, J., Silveira, S., Walter, A., 2012. Power generation from sug-
arcane biomass e a complementary option to hydroelectricity in Nepal and
Brazil. Energy 48, 241e254.
Khatiwada, D., Silveira, S., 2011. Greenhouse gas balances of molasses based ethanol
in Nepal. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1471e1485.
Klenk, I., Landquist, B., de Imana, O.R., 2012. The product carbon footprint of EU beet
sugar (part I). Sugar Ind. Zuckerind. 137 (3), 169e177.
Leal, M.R.L.V., Galdos, M.V., Scarpare, F.V., Seabra, J.E.A., Walter, A., Oliveira, C.O.F.,
2013. Sugarcane straw availability, quality, recovery and energy use: a literature
review. In: Biomass Bioenergy, 20th European Biomass Conference, 53,
pp. 11e19.
Macedo, I.C., Seabra, J.E.A., Silva, J.E.A.R., 2008. Greenhouse gases emissions in the
production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 aver-
ages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (7), 582e595.
Mele, F.D., Kostin, A.M., Guille n-Gos nez, L., 2011. Multiobjective model
albez, G., Jime
for more sustainable fuel supply chains. A case study of the sugar cane industry
in Argentina. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (9), 4939e4958.
Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., Sagisaka, M., 2010. Greenhouse gas savings potential
of sugar cane bio-energy systems. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 412e418.
Octaviano, C., Paltsev, S., Gurgel, A.C., n.d. Climate change policy in Brazil and
Mexico: results from the MIT EPPA model. Energy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.eneco.2015.04.007.
Plassmann, K., Norton, A., Attarzadeh, N., Jensen, M.P., Brenton, P., Edwards-
Jones, G., 2010. Methodological complexities of product carbon footprinting: a
2641
sensitivity analysis of key variables in a developing country context. Environ.
Sci. Policy 13, 393e404.
Prado, R.D.M., Caione, G., Campos, C.N.S., 2013. Filter cake and vinasse as fertilizers
contributing to conservation agriculture. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2013, 1e8.
Ramjeawon, T., 2008. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation from bagasse in
Mauritius. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1727e1734.
Rein, P.W., 2010. The carbon footprint of sugar. Sugar IndistrySuckerind 13,
427e434.
Renouf, M.A., Pagan, R.J., Wegener, M.K., 2013. Bio-production from Australian
sugarcane: an environmental investigation of product diversification in an
agro-industry. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 87e96.
Riegelhapt, E., Gutie rrez Lllerela, J.P., García, C.A., 2012. Acciones apropiadas para la
mitigacio n de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y uso eficiente del agua
en la agroindustria azucarera de Me xico. Report for: Instituto Nacional de
Ecología y Cambio Clim atico and Interamerican Development Bank. Mexico.
Rincon, L.E., Becerra, L.A., Moncada, J., Cardona, C.A., 2014. Techno-economic anal-
ysis of the use of fired cogeneration systems based on sugar cane bagasse in
south eastern and mid-western regions of Mexico. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 5,
189e198.
Rockstro €m, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., So €rlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe
operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472e475.
Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Gujba, H., Azapagic, A., 2011. Life cycle assessment of elec-
tricity generation in Mexico. Energy 36, 1488e1499.
Seabra, J.E.A., Macedo, I.C., Chum, H.L., Faroni, C.E., Sarto, C.A., 2011. Life cycle
assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use.
Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 5, 519e532.
Sentíes-Herrera, H.E., Go mez-Merino, F.C., Valdez-Balero, A., Silva-Rojas, H.V., Trejo-
Tellez, L.I., 2014. The agro-industrial sugarcane system in Mexico: current sta-
tus, challenges and opportunities. J. Agric. Sci. 6 (4), 26e54.
Soam, S., Kumar, R., Gupta, R.P., Sharma, P.K., Tuli, D.K., Das, B., 2015. Life cycle
assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane molasses in northern and western
India and its impact on Indian biofuel programme. Energy 83, 307e315.
Steen, B., 1997. On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J. Clean.
Prod. 5, 255e262.
Tieppo, R.C., Andrea, M.C.S., Gimenez, L.M., Romanelli, T.L., 2014. Energy demand in
sugarcane residue collection and transportation. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 52e58.
UNC, 2014. Estadísticas azucareras de Mexico. Available from. : http://www.caneros.
org.mx/estadisticas.html.
Veysey, J., Octaviano, C., Calvin, K., Martinez, S.H., Kitous, A., McFarland, J., van der
Zwaan, B., n.d. Pathways to Mexico's climate change Mitigation targets: a multi-
model analysis. Energy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.011.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2007. A Definition of “Carbon Footprint”. ISA UK Research
Report 07e01. Cent. Integr. Sustain. Anal. Durh. UK.
Yang, S.D., Liu, J.X., Wu, J., Tan, H.W., Li, Y.R., 2013. Effects of vinasse and press mud
application on the biological properties of soils and productivity of sugarcane.
Sugar Tech. 15 (2), 152e158.
Yuttitham, M., Gheewala, S.H., Chidthaisong, A., 2011. Carbon footprint of sugar
produced from sugarcane in eastern Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 2119e2127.