Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Uncovering energy use, carbon emissions and environmental burdens of T

pulp and paper industry: A systematic review and meta-analysis
⁎ ⁎⁎
Mingxing Suna,b,e, Yutao Wangb,c, , Lei Shia, , Jiří Jaromír Klemešd
a
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Particle Pollution and Prevention (LAP3) and Tyndall Center, Department of Environmental Science & Engineering, Fudan
University, Shanghai 200438, China
c
Shanghai Institute of Eco-Chongming (SIEC), No.3663 Northern Zhongshan Road, Shanghai 200062, China
d
Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory-SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology - VUT BRNO, Technická 2896/2,
616 69 Brno, Czech Republic
e
Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The pulp and paper industry, which provides cellulose pulp and paper, bio-based energy and chemicals, is one of
Pulp and paper the largest energy consumers, greenhouse gases (GHG) and pollutant emitters among manufacturing industries.
Life cycle assessment Although the environmental impact of the pulp and paper industry has been extensively studied, life cycle
Meta-analysis assessment (LCA) results have not yet reached a consensus. By means of a systematic review and meta-analysis,
Straw-based pulp
this article contributes to the quantification and harmonization of the life cycle environmental impacts of pulp
making and paper making systems. Based on the screening of 45 cases of paper making and 18 cases of pulp
making, we found that 1 t of paper results in about 950 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (CO2-eq) GHG
emissions on average. However, there are distinct differences between countries and pulp and paper categories.
The dominant factor influencing GHG emissions is energy use. In paper making, the pulp making process is
responsible for 62% of energy use, 45% of GHG emissions, 48% of acidification potential, and 49% of eu-
trophication potential. The kg CO2-eq emissions of three different types of pulp were as follows: Kraft, 508 kg
CO2-eq/t; chemi-mechanical, 513 kg CO2-eq/t; and recycled pulp, 408 kg CO2-eq/t. Excluding emissions from
electricity and steam production, the convergence of carbon emissions is observed within the same categories of
pulp. Straw-based pulp caused far more environmental impact than any other type because of the intensive
inputs in agricultural activities as well as in the pulp making process. This research highlighted the incon-
sistencies in functional units, system boundaries, and methodologies and carbon neutrality assumptions in dif-
ferent LCA studies of pulp and paper making. Future studies should focus on the environmental impact of straw-
based pulp making, system boundary unification, and calculation of biogenic carbon emissions.

1. Introduction
Paper making includes two main processes: pulp making and paper
formation. In the pulp making process, under a certain temperature and
pressure, cellulose is extracted from the wood or straw by chemicals. In
the paper formation process, the pulp is converted into paper by adding
coatings and fillers. Both pulp making and paper formation processes
involve intensive resources and energy inputs as well as greenhouse
gases (GHG) and pollutant emissions. Therefore, the pulp and paper
industry contributes substantially to total energy use and GHG emis-
sions. Pulp and paper industry is involved in both fossil fuels and re-
newable energy in most countries. Taking Kraft pulping for example, in
the cooking process, large quantities of fossil-based energy are needed
for digesting the lignocellulose. On the other hand, in the alkaline re-
covery process, cellulose is burnt to produce renewable energy, which
could be used to produce pulp and paper. In some cases, the renewable
energy produced in alkaline recovery process could meet all the energy
needed in pulping process, and causing a net positive global warming

Abbreviations: AP, Acidification Potential; CMP, Chemi-mechanical pulp; CO2-eq, CO2 equivalent; EP, Eutrophication Potential; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; GWP, Global Warming Potential;
IQR, Interquartile Range; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; PO43-eq, Phosphate equivalent; SCP, Super Calendared Paper; SO2-eq, SO2 equivalent
⁎
Corresponding author at: Shanghai Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Particle Pollution and Prevention (LAP3) and Tyndall Center, Department of Environmental Science &
Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yutaowang@fudan.edu.cn (Y. Wang), slone@tsinghua.edu.cn (L. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.036
Received 6 May 2017; Received in revised form 13 March 2018; Accepted 14 April 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Sun et al.
potential [1]. Energy quantification and optimization has been a major
issue in pulp and paper industry to foster low carbon and green industry
and promote sustainable development goals (SDGs) put forward by the
United Nations (UN) [2], such as responsible consumption and pro-
duction and climate action. Globally, many efforts have been devoted to
energy conservation [3] and water pollution reduction [4] and hazard
reduction [5] in the pulp and paper industry from government, aca-
demia, and industry. For instance, the pulp and paper industry has been
listed as one of the key industries for emission permit systems in China.
Many studies have focused on quantification of energy use, material
inputs, and pollution emissions in the pulp and paper industry.
Globally, the pulp and paper industry contribute 5.7% of industrial final
energy use [6], and it ranks as the fourth largest GHG emitter and is
responsible for 9% of GHG emissions of manufacturing industries [7].
In China, the pulp and paper industry accounted for 1.7% of industrial
energy demand in 2010 [8], and ranks among the top 10 for GHG
emissions in the 39 industrial branches [9], with energy consumption
being the largest contributor [10]. In European Economic Area member
countries, the pulp and paper industry accounted for 5% of the total
final energy use, and 15% of the final energy use in the industrial sector
in 2010 [11]. In Germany, pulp and paper industries account for 9% of
the industrial energy demand and 2.5% of all the energy-related GHG
emissions [12].
Because of the high energy consumption and high GHG emissions
factors, considerable research has focused on improving the energy
efficiency and reducing the GHG emissions in the pulp and paper in-
dustry. Most of these studies were conducted at the national or regional
scale. The quantifications of energy use and GHG emissions provide a
basis for further analysis. Energy use and GHG emissions over a long-
time series have been calculated in China [10], Sweden [13] and
globally [14]. The historical trajectory of energy efficiency and GHG
emissions intensity were analyzed and the influencing factors were
identified through various decomposition methods [15]. Some studies
even projected the demand for pulp and paper production and the re-
lated GHG emissions in the future for Asia [16]. New technologies were
applied to examine potential to reduce energy use and GHG emissions.
The contribution of policy and technological changes in energy saving
and GHG emission mitigation has been further explored in European
countries, such as the application of an emission trading system [17] or
carbon capture and storage techniques [18] for reducing GHG emis-
sions. Some studies have explored the economic perspective of the
technological application, utilizing economic models to study the cost
of new technology application in energy saving and mitigation of GHG
emissions. The cost of energy saving and carbon emission reductions in
the USA was analyzed in [6], the water related issues in a Mexican mill
in [19]. Combined with the resource endowment, a study has analyzed
the optimization strategies of different countries in reducing GHG
emissions [11]. Research has also analyzed policies in driving energy
saving and GHG emission reduction [20].
Most studies take place at the national or regional level, and mostly
only energy-related GHG emissions are included, while GHG emissions
from other sources such as chemicals, transportation, and biomass are
neglected. Because of the huge heterogeneities between different plants
and the difficulties in obtaining detailed information for each plant, it is
difficult to calculate the GHG emissions for a country from a life cycle
perspective. The national scale calculation gives a rough picture of the
GHG emissions of the pulp and paper making industry in certain
countries or regions. However, it fails to reveal the “true” emissions
from a life cycle perspective, and it is not easy to explore the emissions
from a higher resolution and to identify the processes specifically
contributing to GHG emissions. Country or regional level analyses are
only focused on GHG emissions and energy use, while other environ-
mental impacts, such as acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication
potential (EP) are not quantified. At the same time, life cycle perspec-
tives of multi environmental impacts assessment are conducted at the
plant scale to complement the regional and country scale research.
824
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
As a powerful tool for environmental impact quantification, life
cycle assessment (LCA) is intensively employed in environmental im-
pact assessment in the pulp and paper industry. There are over 100
studies published concerning different processes of pulp and paper
making in different countries, including pulp making [21], paper
making in Portuguese mill [22], evaluating chemical-, mechanical-, and
bio-pulping processes and their sustainability characterization in,
newsprint in Canada [23], forestry processes [24], waste water treat-
ment [25], and sludge management [26]. Some international organi-
zations, such as the European Association of Carton and Carton board
Manufacturers [27], regularly publish the life cycle carbon emissions of
pulp and paper making in specific areas. The pulp and paper industry
has been involved in varieties of feedstock, technological routes and
product categories, which leads to diverse environmental impact eva-
luation results. The further analysis of these results could not only help
to identify the trend of previous studies and provide a benchmark for
comparison, but also identify the hotspots in environmental impacts in
the pulp and paper industry. However, the systematic analysis of those
evaluation results is scarce. To the best of the author's knowledge, there
are few studies systematically analyzing and comparing the life cycle
environmental impacts of pulp and paper production. There is a great
need to systematically analyze the status of the life cycle environmental
impacts of pulp and paper making to provide a benchmark for future
studies.
In this article, we conduct a meta-analysis by systematically ana-
lyzing the life cycle environmental impacts of pulp and paper making
reference to the published LCA studies. Meta-analysis, which was firstly
used in medicine sciences, is a commonly used tool in scientific research
to combine and analyze the results of multiple individual studies to
derive an estimate closer to the common truth [28]. Meta-analysis is a
useful method by which to understand the general status and prevailing
trend of the topic of interest [29]. In our meta-analysis, the total and
average main environmental impacts of pulp and paper, which are the
fundamental results of LCA studies, were first revealed. This basic in-
formation provides the foundation for further analysis. Based on the
overall results, the discrepancies among different categories of pulp and
paper as well as different countries were analyzed. To promote the
further development of LCA on the pulp and paper industry, drawbacks
of current studies and suggestions for further studies are presented. We
aimed to provide a benchmark for life cycle environmental impacts of
pulp and paper making and provide suggestions for future studies.
This article is not just a literature review on LCA of pulp and paper
making. Rather, it concludes by providing a meta-analysis and sys-
tematic review of environmental impact profiles of the pulp and paper
industry. The article is structured as follows: data and methodology are
presented in Section 2; the main results are described in Section 3; and
Section 4 and Section 5 show discussions and conclusions respectively.
2. Data and methodology
LCA has been extensively deployed in environmental evaluation of
bio-oriented products, including production of resources such as elec-
tricity [30], bioethanol [31,32], and chemicals [33]. The environ-
mental impacts of pulp and paper making at enterprise scale are typi-
cally quantified through an internationally standardized LCA method.
Here, we reviewed LCA studies concerning pulp and paper based on a
comprehensive search of the literature published in English. Two
rounds of review have been used to select the targeted studies based on
the following principles. In the first step, only studies that quantified
pulp and paper making in physical units for environmental impact ca-
tegories and excluded those with non-physical functional units in the
USA [34] and Brazil [35]. Second, we only included studies that pro-
vide specific figures for environmental impacts and exclude those that
provide only relative contributions between different processes [36].
We also excluded studies from flyers and presentations and other un-
qualified studies with inadequate description of the data sources and
M. Sun et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833

methodologies. Though some studies might be omitted by using this from sustainably managed forest without land use change in forest
approach, it is still suitable to reveal the general pattern of environ- harvest and biomass carbon emissions are balanced by the CO2 se-
mental impacts of paper and pulp making [37]. Since studies use var- questration from forest growth, shown in a comparison of the GHG
ious characterization models to calculate the environmental impacts, emissions caused by manufacturing tissue paper from virgin pulp or
the included environmental impacts vary between the different studies. recycled waste paper [40] and case study of office paper [43]. In this
Here, we only focus on four dominant environmental impact categories way, only non-biogenic carbon emissions were considered in most
that are commonly included in different models. These are the global studies, while biogenic carbon emissions were not considered. Biogenic
warming potential (GWP), energy use, and two water-pollution-related carbon was removed from the analysis in this study to allow compar-
environmental impact categories: acidification potential (AP), and eu- isons. The use phase and end-of-life management phases of paper were
trophication potential (EP). also excluded from the scope because of high uncertainty in the paper
A total of 45 cases of paper making and 18 cases of pulp making use phase [44] and different methods of paper disposal after use [40].
under different scenarios were screened and included in the review. The functional unit of the analysis was set as 1 metric ton of paper
Since the reviewed articles differ from each other in terms of pulp and (pulp) product by harmonizing the different functional units.
paper type, system boundaries, functional units, allocation methods,
details of the explanation of the results, and because of the limited
3. Results
number of articles, we did not try to correct for differences in choices
and assumptions. Instead, we aimed to provide a spectrum of the en-
3.1. GWP in paper making
vironmental impacts of pulp making and paper making. We quantified
the GWP in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kg CO2-eq) by
Studies on GHG emissions of paper making are mainly wood-based
considering the GWP of GHG emissions over a time horizon of 100
or recycled paper based paper making cases. The reviewed literature
years, energy use in gigajoules (GJ) of energy used, AP in kilograms of
suggests that one metric ton of paper, regardless of pulp and paper
sulfur dioxide equivalent (kg SO2-eq) emissions and EP in kilograms of
categories, in a cradle to gate approach, on average causes 951 kg CO2-
phosphate equivalent (kg PO43−-eq) emissions. The weighting factors
eq GHG emissions (interquartile range (IQR) = 516–1301 kg CO2-eq
of different parameters of AP and EP were based on European
GHG emissions; median = 915 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions). Since only a
Environment Agency [38] and Nordic Guidelines on Life Cycle As-
few cases were selected in some countries, in order to conduct a geo-
sessment [39] respectively.
graphical analysis in paper making, we regrouped cases according to
To ensure comparability between the cases, the system boundary of
their geographical location as follows: cases from Norway, Sweden, and
all case studies was set to the “cradle to gate” approach. As is shown in
Finland were set into the Nordic countries group (NOR); cases from
Fig. 1, the system boundary of wood and straw-based pulp making in-
Spain and Portugal were combined into a group (ESP&POR); cases from
cluded harvest of the biomass, transportation of the biomass to the pulp
other parts of Europe, such as Romania, Slovakia, and France, and cases
mill, pulp making process, waste management, as well as energy and
using European average data, were combined into a group (EU); cases
chemical production and transportation. The system boundary of re-
from the USA and Canada were combined into the North American
cycled pulp making began from waste paper collection to pulp making,
group (NA); cases from Brazil (BRA) and China (CHN) were grouped
while the environmental impacts of pulp making of the waste paper
separately; and cases from the rest of the world were combined into a
were assumed to be in the former life cycle of pulp making and thus
single group (OTHERS). As shown in Fig. 2, printing paper, super ca-
were not included in the recycled pulp making. The system boundary of
lendared paper (SCP) and cartons are the most studied paper types, and
paper making, as depicted in Fig. 1, included pulp making, the paper
case studies are intensively distributed in European countries, Brazil
products making process, and its related energy and chemical inputs.
and China, which are among the largest pulp and paper producers.
The forest husbandry and agricultural cultivation were included in
Since there were heterogeneities in factors such as pulp type, paper
some studies; however, their environmental impacts are minor and
type, study areas, and investigation period among the reviewed studies,
negligible [40] or they were integrated with wood harvest in the wood
there was no obvious trend and pattern of GHG emissions and it was
management process and could not be separated, as shown in analysis
difficult to provide general conclusions. Here, we provide a panel dis-
for folding box board and kraftliner paper [41] and folding box board
play of the GHG emissions of different types of pulp-based paper
and kraftliner paper [42]. Therefore, forest husbandry and agricultural
making in different countries or regions over time (Fig. 2). As shown,
cultivation were only included in the analysis when the cases explicitly
there are no clear trends in GHG emissions of paper making over time.
included these processes. For the GWP impact category, most studies
Thus, we examined the hotspots of these studies. We define cases with
used a carbon neutrality approach by assuming that wood pulp comes
GHG emissions over 1300 kg CO2-eq as high emission group, cases with

Fig. 1. The life cycle of pulp and paper. The system boundary of paper making is shown in the out dash-line box, and the system boundary of pulp making is shown in
the inner dash-line box.

825
M. Sun et al.
Fig. 2. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different types of paper for different
countries or regions. The unfilled in the year 2016 indicate the GHG emissions
of cases deploying future technology. SCP is super calendared paper, LWC is
light-weight coated paper.
GHG emissions under 600 kg CO2-eq as low emission group, and other
cases as moderate emission group.
3.1.1. High emissions group
Most cases from China are in the high emissions group with over
1500 kg CO2-eq per ton of paper. The most carbon emission intensive
case study utilized an imported Kraft pulp and local chemi-mechanical
pulp (CMP) mixture to make SCP with total GHG emissions of 2646 kg
CO2-eq per ton. The GHG emissions can be mostly attributed to the coal
burning to provide electricity and steam for CMP and SCP making [45].
Another high emission case from China utilized woodchips and waste
paper to produce coated white board with GHG emissions of 2300 kg
CO2-eq per ton [46]. The most important contributors to these GHG
emissions were steam production, followed by chemical production and
electricity, in which electricity and steam production rely heavily on
hard coal. These high emissions were largely associated with the lack of
energy recovery in the black liquor recovery process. If typical energy
recovery rate 60% of the energy from black liquor could be recovered,
the GHG emissions could be reduced to 1664 kg CO2-eq. The cases that
produce printing paper with Kraft pulp and produce newspaper with
recycled paper pulp emit 1756 and 1667 kg CO2-eq per ton of paper,
respectively. The largest contributor for both cases was energy pro-
duction for the paper formation process, followed by energy production
for the pulp making process [47].
Another carbon emission intensive case is from Spain and used
wood Kraft pulp to produce tissue paper with 1875 kg CO2-eq emissions
[40]. In this case, pulp, which was imported from other European
countries and South America, contributed 30% of the total GHG emis-
sions. Electricity from the national grid and steam generation from non-
renewables accounted for 25% and 23% of the total emissions, re-
spectively. Notably, transportation contributed 20% of the total emis-
sions, which was substantial because of long transportation distance of
pulp. The production of tissue paper from recycled paper also showed
high GHG emissions with 1307 kg CO2-eq emissions [40]. The most
important contributors were steam heat generated from natural gas and
electricity from the national grid, accounting for 41% and 39% of the
total emissions, respectively.
There were few studies reporting high GHG emissions without
clarification of the main contributors. The case study from the National
Geographic magazine produced in the USA also reported high GHG
emissions with 1650 kg CO2-eq [48]. However, since the focus of the
826
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
study was on the entire life cycle of the National Geographical maga-
zine, there is no detailed disaggregated data on processes in paper and
pulp making. The main contributor of GHG emissions in coated ma-
gazine paper making is fuel consumption (83.5% of total emissions).
The Malaysian case, which utilized oil palm empty fruit shells to make
pulp and paper, produced emissions of 1809 kg CO2-eq per ton of paper.
Similarly, the focus of the study was the comparison of environmental
impacts of different utilization pattern of oil palm empty fruit shells,
and no details of the main contributor of GHG emissions in pulp making
were provided [49]. Another high GHG emissions case utilized data
from multiple countries, providing emissions of 1400 kg CO2-eq per ton
of paper produced, without clarifying the dominant contributors [50].
3.1.2. Low emissions group
Some cases showed a low GHG emissions intensity, many of which
were located in Nordic countries and Brazil. Ghose and Chinga-Carrasco
[51] estimated the GHG emissions for super-calendared paper and
newsprint, based on the national paper and pulp production in Norway.
In the fiscal year 2011, the GHG emissions for newspaper production
would be 483 kg CO2-eq if mixed electricity generated throughout
Europe were used. This represented a significant decrease compared
with 586 kg CO2-eq emissions in 2008. The most important contributor
to GHG emissions was thermo-mechanical pulp production, which is a
highly energy intensive process. The GHG emissions could have been
reduced to 178 kg CO2-eq in 2011 and 231 kg CO2-eq in 2008 if Nor-
wegian electricity were used. The analysis of SCP shows a different
picture. The GHG emissions of SCP would have been 521 CO2-eq in
2011 and 535 CO2-eq in 2008 with 3% decrease of GHG emissions if
mixed electricity generated throughout Europe were used [51]. The
GHG emissions could have been reduced to 255 kg CO2-eq in 2011 and
234 kg CO2-eq in 2008 if Norwegian energy were used. However, the
main contributors under Norwegian electricity scenarios were different.
Thermo-chemical pulp, fillers and transport all largely contributed to
GHG emissions.
The production of kraftliner paper in Klabin, the largest paper
producer in Brazil, shows some of the lowest GHG emissions. The GHG
emissions of kraftliner paper production before and after facility mod-
ernization, which mainly included the installation of new boilers to
incinerate biomass to produce energy, a new production line of thermo-
chemical pulp, and tertiary wastewater treatment facilities, was 287
and 261 kg CO2-eq respectively [52]. Before modernization, the main
contributors included boilers and wood production. After moderniza-
tion, the contribution of boilers and wood production decreased while
black liquor recovery became one of the most important contributors.
In the same factory, the production line of folding boxboard also
showed improvement as a result of facility modernization. After mod-
ernization, 461 kg CO2-eq was achieved, relative to 936 kg CO2-eq be-
fore modernization. The main reduction was from the bleaching process
because of the reduced hydrogen peroxide usage. It should be noted
that the electricity used in the factory was largely attributed to hy-
dropower and the related GHG emissions were lower than conventional
electricity. Moreover, wood husbandry was included in wood produc-
tion process, increasing the GHG emissions relative to other studies. The
production of liquid packaging board from Kraft pulp and thermo-
chemical mechanical pulp in the same factory shows that GHG emis-
sions were 512 kg CO2-eq in 2008, which could be attributed to
bleaching, electricity from the grid, boilers, forestry, and black liquor
recovery [53]. A large emission reduction was achieved compared with
the value of 999 kg CO2-eq in 1998 when wood biomass was not fully
used and boilers and turbines had not yet been modernized.
3.1.3. Moderate emissions group
Manda et al. [54] identified the GHG emissions of conventional
Kraft-pulp-based office paper making of paper mills in Slovakia, which
amounts to 800 kg CO2-eq. The main contributors of GHG emissions
were not elaborated in the study. Based on a paper and pulp plant in
M. Sun et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833

China, Hong and Li [55] analyzed the GHG emissions of office paper
making from both waste paper and woodchips, with emissions of 820 kg
CO2-eq and 960 kg CO2-eq, respectively. The main contributors to the
waste paper case were electricity and landfill, accounting for 55% and
29% of the total GHG emissions, respectively. Electricity, heavy fuel oil
and landfill were deemed as the main contributors to the woodchip-
based case. Dias and Arroja [56] studied the GHG emissions of Kraft
pulp based office paper making in Portugal by three methods. The LCA
study showed that 930 kg CO2-eq is emitted during the office paper
making process. Based on data from other studies, Silva et al. [57]
analyzed the GHG emissions of offset paper production from wood Kraft
pulp. Electricity production used in the offset paper making process and
electricity production used in pulp making process were major con-
tributors to the total 1050 kg CO2-eq, accounting for 44% and 34% of
the total emissions, respectively. The contribution of electricity to GHG
emissions was also highlighted in testliner paper making from con-
taminated waste paper in Romania, in which 687 kg CO2-eq was
emitted per ton of paper [58].
The common feature identified between the different studies is that
energy production played a vital role in the GHG emissions. For the
Fig. 3. GHG emissions of paper making per metric ton of paper in different
high emissions group, cases from China are highly dependent on coal
countries or regions. Results are shown as mean ± standard error. Different
burning as an energy supply. The intrinsic characteristics of coal
letters denote significant difference at p < 0.05 according to a one-way
burning contributes to greater GHG emissions per unit energy produced ANOVA test.
than other energy sources. Moreover, outdated technologies are also an
important factor influencing the total GHG emissions of paper making,
such as lack of energy recovery in the alkaline recovery process [46].
The cases from Spain highlight the contribution of steam generation
from natural gases and electricity from the Spanish national grid.
Though not explained in detail, fuel consumption was also identified as
the dominant factor influencing the GHG emissions from paper making
in the USA case. Energy was also the dominant contributor to GHG
emissions [59] in the low emissions group; however, the contribution of
other processes was also identified, such as chemicals, transportation,
and fillers. The importance of energy production in the contribution of
GHG emissions was also highlighted in the moderate emission group. In
the high and moderate GHG emissions groups, because of the high
contribution of energy production, GHG emissions from other processes
were partly inundated and were thus difficult to analyze.

3.1.4. GHG emissions from paper making in different countries

According to Fig. 2, GHG emissions of paper making seems to be
higher in certain countries. In order to identify the pattern according to
geographical location, we grouped studies according to the source
countries of data regardless of the type of pulp used to make paper and
the paper categories, and then tested the significant differences of GHG
emissions of cases from different countries or regions. The results in-
dicate that cases from China had the highest GHG emissions in paper
making, while cases from Nordic countries and Brazil were among the
lowest GHG emissions (Fig. 3). On average, cases in China had the
highest GHG emissions, but the emissions were not significantly greater
than cases from Spain and Portugal, North America and other countries.
Cases from all of the above countries led to significantly higher GHG
emissions than cases from other European countries, Brazil and Nordic
countries. Cases from the Nordic countries had the lowest GHG emis-
sions, which were significantly lower than any other countries and re-
gions other than Brazil. The differences in different countries were
strongly related to the electricity and energy mix. China is highly de-
pendent on coal for electricity and heat production, which is associated
with larger quantities of carbon emissions. A large proportion of energy
comes from fossil fuels in Spain and Portugal, which contributes to high
GHG emissions in both countries. In contrast, in Nordic countries and
Brazil, renewables such as hydropower and biomass play a major role in
the energy mix. The GHG emissions of hydropower is much lower than
fossil fuels and the GHG emissions of biomass is usually not included in
the calculation.
Fig. 4. The main environmental impacts of paper making per metric ton of
paper in different countries or regions. Results are shown as mean ± standard
error.
3.2. Other environmental impacts in paper making
Other dominant environmental impacts in paper making are illu-
strated in Fig. 4. To make a comparison between the GHG emissions
and total energy use in paper making, we only included cases that
contain estimated of both GHG emissions and energy use. The average
energy use, AP, and EP for the reviewed studies were 28.26 GJ (IQR =
15.28–41.70 GJ; median = 26.70 GJ), 10.53 kg SO2-eq (IQR =
2.54–12.80 kg SO2-eq; median = 5.90 kg SO2-eq), and 1.76 kg PO43−-
eq (IQR =0.29–1.85 kg PO43−-eq; median = 0.61 kg PO43−-eq). re-
spectively. There was no synchronicity of GHG emissions and energy
use for different countries. Though the GHG emissions of cases from
Brazil and other European countries were low, there were no significant
differences in total energy use of cases from different countries and
regions, except cases from Nordic countries, which had the lowest en-
vironmental impacts in the GHG emissions and energy use categories.

827
M. Sun et al.
Fig. 5. The environmental impacts contribution of pulp making to paper
making. Results are shown as mean ± standard error. Different letters denote
significant difference at p < 0.05 according to a one-way ANOVA test.
Therefore, life cycle GHG emissions could not objectively reflect the
technological level of paper making since large quantities of energy
comes from renewables that are not accounted in the estimation of GHG
emissions. The AP and EP analysis shows that cases from China, Brazil,
and Spain and Portugal had a high environmental impact, while cases
from European countries and Nordic countries had low environmental
impacts.
3.3. The environmental impact contribution of pulp making to paper making
Pulp making is the essential and core part of paper making, but it is
also the most energy and water consumption intensive and waste water
discharge intensive process. It is therefore important to explore the
environmental impacts of pulp making. Unlike the various categories of
paper, there are only four main types of pulp: wood Kraft pulp, CMP,
recycled pulp, and straw-based pulp. It is therefore more appropriate to
compare the environmental impact of different categories of pulp. We
first explored the environmental impact of pulp making to paper
making based on analysis of 20 cases for GWP, 13 cases for energy use,
and 26 cases for AP and EP. The contribution of pulp in the four ca-
tegories of environmental impacts was around 50% (Fig. 5). In parti-
cular, for GWP, the proportion of pulp making to paper making varied
from 14.86% to 80.45%, with an average contribution of 45.36% (IQR
= 32.46–58.95%). For energy use, the proportion of pulp making
varied from 45.10% to 73.62%, with an average contribution of 62.52%
(IQR = 56.89–70.19%). For AP, the contribution of pulp varied from
19.98% to 87.53%, with the average contribution 47.47% (IQR
=35.42–58.26%). For EP, the average proportion of pulp was 48.52%
(IQR = 38.36–57.90%). The discrepancy between the percentage va-
lues for energy use and GHG emissions is examined in the discussion.
3.4. Environmental impacts of pulp making
Because of the high contribution of pulp making to the environ-
mental impacts of paper making, we further analyzed the environ-
mental performance of pulp making. The number of reviewed studies
on pulp making was limited to 18 cases, with 9 on wood Kraft pulp
making, 5 for wood CMP pulp making, 2 for recycled pulp making, and
3 for straw-based pulp making. Since the magnitude of the environ-
mental impacts of straw-based pulp making is much larger than that of
wood-based and recycled pulp, straw-based pulp making is analyzed
828
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
Fig. 6. GHG emissions from making different types of pulp in different coun-
tries or regions. The filled symbols represent the GHG emissions of pulp making,
while the unfilled symbols mean the GHG emissions of pulp making subtracting
emissions from fossil fuels. Different colors of the symbols represent different
countries or regions; different shapes of the symbols represent different pulp
categories.
separately.
3.4.1. GWP in pulp making
The GHG emissions of different types of pulp is shown in Fig. 6. The
GWP of Kraft pulp, CMP, and recycled pulp making averaged 507, 512,
and 418 kg CO2-eq, respectively. The GWP for Kraft pulp varied from
269 to 539 kg CO2-eq, with one exceptional case from the USA, which
emitted 1605 kg CO2-eq per ton of pulp produced in 2000 [59]. The
lowest GHG emission cases were two cases from Norway and two cases
from Europe. For CMP, the GWP varied from 69 to 1655 kg CO2-eq,
with the highest emissions case from the USA in 2000 and the lowest
emissions case from Norway in 2011. The two recycled pulp making
cases were from China in 2010 and the USA in 2000, with 388 and
448 kg CO2-eq, respectively.
Because of the high heterogeneity of the energy mix in different
countries, the total difference in GHG emissions between cases could be
significantly affected by emissions from fossil fuels used for steam and
electricity production. Therefore, we attempted to exclude the GHG
emissions from steam and electricity production in our analyses. As
shown by the unfilled symbols in Fig. 6, the fluctuations of GHG
emissions were substantially reduced when fossil fuel emissions were
excluded. Cases from different countries and regions show convergence
in GHG emissions after excluding emissions from steam and electricity
production. For Kraft pulp making, the most carbon-intensive cases
were the USA case in 2000 with 417 kg CO2-eq emissions and the
Spanish case in 2007 with 315 kg CO2-eq emissions. However, those
two cases included forest cultivation and harvest processes, while other
cases only included forest harvest process. For CMP making, after ex-
clusion of emissions of steam and electricity, the GHG emissions varied
from 36 to 116 kg CO2-eq. However, this high-emission case included
emissions from forest cultivation. The GHG emissions for recycled pulp
also decreased dramatically following fossil fuel exclusion, with waste
paper collection being the largest contributor. After exclusion of
emissions from steam and electricity, the GHG emissions of Kraft pulp
making and recycled pulp making were significantly higher than those
from CMP making.
M. Sun et al.
Fig. 7. GHG emissions and energy use of different pulp making cases. Each case
is shown as pulp type-country-year. K is Kraft pulp, C is CMP, and R is recycled
pulp.
3.4.2. Other environmental impacts
The GHG emissions and energy use of each reviewed case are illu-
strated in Fig. 7. The most energy intensive cases were Kraft pulp
making and CMP making from USA in 2000 [59], which also reflected
the highest GHG emissions. Though CMP making from Norway and
Europe in 2008 and 2011 was also involved in large quantities of en-
ergy use, their GHG emissions were comparatively low, which can be
explained by the utilization of renewables. The contradictory case for
recycled pulp making from China in 2010 shows that the energy use
was low, but high GHG emissions were identified. The AP and EP of
pulp making of different cases are shown in Fig. 8. Kraft pulp making
from Spain in 2007 was a major contributor to both AP and EP. One of
the most important contributing factors (about 25% to both AP and EP)
was forest operation, which included forest cultivation with large
quantities of chemicals and energy inputs. Moreover, waste treatment
Fig. 8. Acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP) of dif-
ferent pulp making cases. Each case is shown as pulp type-country-year. K is
Kraft pulp, C is CMP, and R is recycled pulp.
829
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
and wastewater treatment significantly contributed to EP in this case.
For AP, the environmental impact potential of cases from the USA was
small compared with other cases. For EP, the environmental impact
potential of cases from the USA was minor and could be overlooked.
However, cases from China had the largest environmental impact po-
tential, followed by the case from Spain.
3.4.3. Environmental impacts of straw-based pulp making
The LCA studies of straw-based pulp making are currently limited
and mainly focus on hemp and flax pulp making. González-García et al.
[42] studied the environmental impact of hemp and flax based pulp
production by soda-anthraquinone based on data from a factory in
Spain, which was a pioneer work in addressing the environmental as-
pect of non-wood pulp production. The GHG emissions of pulp making
were 7301 kg CO2-eq, with about 45% being attributed to agriculture
activities which were associated with heavy energy, chemical, and
fertilizer inputs and nitrogen dioxide emissions. Based on secondary
data, Vieira et al. [60] estimated GHG emissions of pulp making from
hemp in Portugal, and the results showed that over 14,000 kg CO2-eq
GHG were emitted during pulp making. However, the proportion con-
tribution of the agricultural process was much smaller than that in the
Spanish case. The case from China, which utilized wheat straw to make
pulp, reported 4550 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions for per ton of pulp
without considering the straw planting and harvest processes [61].
Compared with wood-based pulp making and recycled pulp making, the
GHG emissions of straw-based pulp making were exceptionally high
(Fig. 9). In the Spanish case [42], besides the high contribution of
agricultural activities, chemicals, electricity, and steam production also
contributed substantially to GHG emissions. For the Portuguese case
[60], no detailed information was disclosed except that agriculture
contributed 14% of the total GHG emissions. The magnitude of AP and
EP of straw-based pulp making also showed a significant increase.
Specifically, the average impact potential of AP and EP of straw-based
pulp making was 90.78 kg SO2-eq and 25.38 kg PO43−-eq, respectively
(Fig. 10). For the Spanish case, AP was mostly contributed by agri-
cultural activity (42%), electricity production (30%), and steam pro-
duction (20%). In contrast, EP was mostly contributed by agricultural
activities (88%), followed by steam production (6%) and electricity
(3%). Straw-based pulp making is thus characterized by high environ-
mental impacts compared with other categories of pulp making. The
high contribution of the agricultural process, in terms of both absolute
quantities and the contribution rate to the paper making, is much
Fig. 9. GHG emissions of different categories of pulp. Results are shown as
mean ± standard error. Different letters denote significant difference at
p < 0.05 according to a one-way ANOVA test.
M. Sun et al.
Fig. 10. Environmental impact potential of acidification potential (AP) and
eutrophication potential (EP) of different pulp making categories. Results are
shown as mean ± standard error.
higher than other categories of pulp making.
4. Discussion
4.1. Calculation of the environmental impacts of pulp and paper making
LCA is an internationally standardized method to assess the en-
vironmental impact of a certain product or service. Moreover, it is ex-
tensively used in the calculation of environmental impacts of pulp and
paper making. The functional unit and system boundary delimitations
are the basis for LCA study. In the LCA of pulp making and paper
making, the functional unit is typically set as 1 metric ton of air dried
paper/pulp, which makes comparisons possible. Though most studies
take a cradle to gate approach (some taking a gate to gate approach
[53]), the disunity of the system boundary of the studies hinders the
further analysis of different studies. Firstly, whether forest management
should be included in the scope is not clearly unified among the studies.
Because of differences in data availability, some cases included both
forest cultivation and forest harvest [52,62], while others only included
the latter [51,63]. When reported, the environmental impacts of forest
cultivation, harvest, and transportation were often integrated and could
not be separated. In some cases, the contribution of forest management
was integrated into the pulp making process and was not reported se-
parately. The above issues make it difficult to compare the environ-
mental impacts of specific processes precisely among the different
cases. If data are available, the system boundary should be expanded to
include forest cultivation processes. The environmental impacts of
forest cultivation and forest harvest should be reported separately to
allow further comparison analyses. Secondly, it should be stated whe-
ther the environmental impacts of the machinery and the infrastructure
are included in the system boundary. Some studies have shown that
capital equipment plays a minor role in environmental impacts in paper
making unless metal depletion is the focus of the research [64].
Therefore, the impacts of paper making machinery could be neglected.
Some case studies included the infrastructure in the system boundary
[46]. However, the environmental impact of the infrastructure was not
explained in the results, which calls for the necessity of exploring the
environmental impact contribution of infrastructure in LCA studies of
pulp and paper making.
In the GHG emissions calculation in pulp and paper making, there is
a key assumption of carbon neutrality inherent in the assumption that
830
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
the wood comes from sustainably managed forest without land change
in harvest as well as the assumption that carbon emissions in the paper
making, use, and disposal phases are neutralized by carbon sequestra-
tion in the biomass growth phase. However, not all wood is from sus-
tainably managed forest, which means that far greater quantities of
carbon emissions caused by land use change are neglected [65]. Fur-
thermore, not all carbon sequestrated in wood would be emitted as CO2,
such as in methane emissions from waste water treatment and from
landfill when paper ends its life as landfill rather than incineration.
Because of the much stronger GWP of methane than CO2, the GHG
emissions are largely underestimated. In order to show a clear picture
of the carbon balance in a life cycle of pulp and paper, we recommend
the reporting of fossil-fuel related GHG emissions and biogenic GHG
emissions separately, as is shown in some literature [59,66].
The clear interpretation of the LCA results is important to improve
accessibility of the results to stakeholders, but the reporting of LCA
results of pulp and paper making can be unclear and confusing. First,
pulp making is the core component of paper making, but in many cases,
the environmental impact contribution of pulp making to paper making
has not been not declared [67,68]. Second, the reporting of environ-
mental impacts can be confusing. In some studies, the authors reported
the contribution of inputs together with processes; factors such as
emissions from electricity, steam, and chemical production are reported
together with pulp and paper making [46,58,67]. Since electricity and
steam are used in the process pulp and paper making, this is difficult for
the readers to understand the contribution of each input and the con-
tribution of each process. Therefore, the contribution of processes and
inputs should be reported separately with sufficient clarification of
which processes have been included in each specific process.
4.2. The environmental impacts of different countries and regions
The environmental impacts of both pulp making and paper making
are differentiated by the geographical location of the cases. As an en-
ergy-intensive industry, the environmental impacts of the pulp and
paper making industry are substantially affected and even determined
by the energy source categories. Moreover, the environmental impacts
from other inputs can be inundated by the energy input. The energy mix
for electricity and steam determines the high environmental impact
potential of cases in China, where coal-based electricity and steam
production contribute substantially to GWP, AP, and EP [46]. The low
environmental impact potential of cases in Nordic countries can be
explained by the large proportion of renewable sources of energy pro-
duction [51,63]. The noteworthy cases from Brazil, which show low
GHG emissions with substantial energy use (Fig. 4), highlight the im-
portance of the energy mix in determining GHG emissions. The LCA
environmental impacts of pulp making in different areas cannot fully
reveal the technological level in different areas because of the differ-
ences of the energy mix. Taking GWP as an example, excluding GHG
emissions from electricity and steam, the GHG emissions of the same
categories of pulp in different areas show convergence, indicating that
the technological differences of pulp making in different countries is
smaller than the differences in the environmental impacts.
4.3. The role of pulp making in paper making
Pulp making is the core component of paper making, and involves
large quantities of material input and pollution. On average, pulp
making contributes about 50% of the main environmental impact ca-
tegories of the total paper making process. Pulp making contributes
more than 62% of total impacts in energy use, while it only contributes
45% of GHG emissions. The distinct difference of the contribution of
pulp in GHG emissions and energy use is mainly because renewables are
highly involved in pulp making, especially in Kraft pulp making, where
the biomass in black liquor is incinerated for energy production.
Though pulp making plays a vital role in paper making for
M. Sun et al.
environmental impact, other processes also contribute substantially to
the total environmental impact, such as chemicals and electricity used
in paper formation. Therefore, when quantifying the life cycle en-
vironmental impact of paper making, both pulp making and other
processes should be emphasized.
4.4. Straw-based pulp making
Based on three studies in the review, which utilized flax, hemp and
wheat straw to produce pulp, straw-based pulp making has tre-
mendously higher environmental impacts than wood-based or recycled
pulp making. Agricultural activities play a dominant role in some en-
vironmental impact categories. Compared with forest management,
agricultural activities use more water, pesticides, fertilizers, and ma-
chinery inputs, as well as discharge pollution. Apart from agricultural
activities, other processes also contribute more to environmental im-
pacts than wood-based pulp. Chemicals and electricity consumption in
straw-based pulp making is more intensive, and therefore, environ-
mental impacts are more severe.
Though straw-based pulp making is a major branch of pulp making,
the practices are not widespread and therefore studies are few. Straw-
based pulp making, especially agricultural stalk based pulp making, is
mostly distributed in areas with a shortage of forest, such as China,
though few LCA studies on straw-based pulp making have been con-
ducted in China. Because of the high material and energy demand, as
well as high pollutant emissions, the production of straw-based pulp is
declining. However, this process not only provides an opportunity for
regional agricultural residues management, but also provides alter-
native raw materials for pulp making. Therefore, with the innovation of
technology, straw-based pulp making could be a promising pulp making
category. The comprehensive environmental impact assessment of
straw-based pulp making is also in great need. Unlike the three re-
viewed studies, in which the raw material for pulp making is also the
main product of agriculture, the raw material for most straw-based pulp
making is the residues from other activities, such as crop stalks and
bagasse. These materials would be produced no matter whether they
are utilized in pulp making. Therefore, further LCA studies on straw-
based pulp making are greatly needed with the focus on the delimita-
tion of the system boundary.
5. Conclusions
By exploring the life cycle environmental impacts of pulp making
and paper making in a cradle to gate approach, the findings from the
literature allow us to draw the following conclusions:
For paper making, about 950 kg of CO2-eq GHG are emitted on
average. However, there are distinct differences between different
countries and regions and different paper types. On average, cases from
Nordic countries and Brazil have the lowest GHG emissions, and cases
from China and Spain and Portugal have the highest GHG emissions.
Energy (steam and electricity) production is the dominant process
producing GHG emissions in the pulp and paper making industry. There
is no synchronicity of GHG emissions and total energy use in paper
making since a high proportion of renewable energy is involved in
paper making and GHG emissions from renewables are low. For AP and
EP, cases from China, Brazil, and Spain and Portugal have the largest
environmental impact potential.
As the core part of paper making, pulp making contributes sig-
nificantly to the environmental impacts of paper making. Pulp making
contributes 62%, 45%, 48% and 49% of total energy use, GWP, AP, and
EP in paper making, respectively. Pulp making cannot fully reflect the
environmental impacts of paper making. For GWP, different pulp
making studies show distinct differences, which can be mostly attrib-
uted to steam and electricity use. Furthermore, GHG emissions from
other processes are inundated by emissions from steam and electricity.
Excluding GHG emissions from steam and electricity production,
831
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
different cases of the same pulp categories tend to converge towards a
similar GHG emissions value.
Straw-based pulp making is an important component of pulp
making. However, LCA studies related to straw-based pulp making are
limited because of the limited production capacity of straw-based pulp
globally. Straw-based pulp causes significantly more environmental
impacts than wood-based and recycled pulp. Agricultural activities are
a dominant process influencing the environmental impacts, especially
for GWP and EP. Apart from agricultural activities, chemical and energy
inputs in the straw-based pulp making process also contribute con-
siderable environmental impacts compared with that in wood-based
and recycled pulp.
Several drawbacks were identified in the studies reviewed in this
research. In the environmental impact quantification, the system
boundary was not set as unified, especially for the forest nursery and
plant infrastructure installation. Carbon neutrality has been a pre-
sumption in most studies, and biomass-related carbon release and se-
questration is not included in the quantification. However, the condi-
tions for carbon neutrality cannot be fulfilled in all cases. The
interpretation of the LCA results is not sufficiently clear in many cases.
Though there are some LCA studies focused on straw-based pulp
making, straw used in pulp making in published articles is from crops
cultivated mainly for fibers use rather than for food production. The
utilization of straw from food-oriented crops in pulp making (agro-re-
sidual based pulp making), which is an important component of paper
and pulp industry, especially in China, has basically been analyzed from
a technological perspective [69,70]. Furthermore, the environmental
aspects of agro-residuals, such as crop-stalk- and bagasse-based pulp
making have not been analyzed in depth.
More research is needed to fully quantify the life cycle environ-
mental impacts of pulp and paper making. First, the research of straw-
based pulp making is far from sufficient, especially for agro-residue-
based pulp making. Research is required on both methodologies to
quantify the environmental impacts as well as provision of clear case
studies. Second, the system boundary of LCA should be expanded. In
most cases, forest nursery is not included in the cradle to gate approach,
which might underestimate the environmental impacts. The end-of-life
management of paper should also be considered in future studies.
Third, the carbon neutrality assumption should be investigated on a
case-by-case basis since high amounts of emissions are associated with
land use change. We suggest reporting of the biogenic carbon emis-
sions, fossil fuel carbon emissions, and carbon sequestration in the
forest separately. Finally, the interpretation of the results should be
clearer to avoid misunderstanding and confusion. A fast-developing
methodology implementing footprints [71], which overcome one of the
major drawbacks of the LCA methodology – the quantification -should
be used as base for future studies.
The further analysis of pulp and paper industry, which is an energy-
intensive industry, is of significance in clarifying the energy consump-
tion and pollutants emissions patterns and identifying the hotspots in
driving great environmental burdens. To ensure the SDGs put forward
by the UN, sustainable consumption and production of pulp and paper
helps to lower the overall environmental burdens, and life cycle per-
spective examination of the industry can systematically stimulate the
sustainability transition of the industry. To tackle the global climate
change challenges, substitution of fossil fuels by the renewables is the
key to reduce the GHG emissions. The biomass-oriented characteristic
of pulp and paper industry has great potential to reduce GHG emissions
and even becomes GHG emissions negative industry. Since paper can be
recycled, it is possible to foster circular economy in pulp and paper
industry. Future studies are recommended to address energy intensity,
low GHG emissions, less environmental burdens and circularity of pulp
and paper industry.
M. Sun et al.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No.71774032), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.
2017M610922), Opening Project of Shanghai Key Laboratory of
Atmospheric Particle Pollution and Prevention (LAP3) (No.
20171450243), the Major Science and Technology Program for Water
Pollution Control and Treatment (2017ZX07301-004). and by the EU
project “Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory – SPIL”
(No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000456) funded by EU “CZ
Operational Programme Research, Development and Education”,
Priority 1: Strengthening capacity for quality research under a colla-
boration agreement with Fudan University in Shanghai.
References
[1] Södra. Annual Report with Sustainability Report 2015; 2015.
[2] Zhu D. Research from global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to sustain-
ability science based on the object-subject-process framework. Chin J Popul Resour
Environ 2017;15:8–20.
[3] Wetterlund E, Pettersson K, Harvey S. Systems analysis of integrating biomass ga-
sification with pulp and paper production - effects on economic performance, CO2
emissions and energy use. Fuel Energy Abstr 2011;36:932–41.
[4] Kamali M, Khodaparast Z. Review on recent developments on pulp and paper mill
wastewater treatment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2015;114:326–42.
[5] Owens JW. The hazard assessment of pulp and paper effluents in the aquatic en-
vironment: a review. Environ Toxicol Chem 2010;10:1511–40.
[6] Xu T, Sathaye J, Kramer K. Sustainability options in pulp and paper making: costs of
conserved energy and carbon reduction in the US. Sustain Cities Soc 2013;8:56–62.
[7] Gielen D, Bennaceur K, Kerr T, Tam C, Tanaka K, Taylor M. et al. IEA, Tracking
Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions; 2007.
[8] Peng L, Zeng X, Wang Y, Hong GB. Analysis of energy efficiency and carbon dioxide
reduction in the Chinese pulp and paper industry. Energy Policy 2015;80:65–75.
[9] Li Y. Study on the differences and influencing factors of Chinese carbon dioxide
emissions——based on industry Branches' empirical research. J Ind Technol Econ
2012.
[10] Wang Y, Yang X, Sun M, Ma L, Li X, Shi L. Estimating carbon emissions from the
pulp and paper industry: a case study. Appl Energy 2016;184:779–89.
[11] Laurijssen J, Faaij A, Worrell E. Energy conversion strategies in the European paper
industry – A case study in three countries. Appl Energy 2012;98:102–13.
[12] Fleiter T, Fehrenbach D, Worrell E, Eichhammer W. Energy efficiency in the
German pulp and paper industry – A model-based assessment of saving potentials.
Energy 2012;40:84–99.
[13] Stenqvist C. Trends in energy performance of the Swedish pulp and paper industry:
1984–2011. Energy Effic 2015;8:1–17.
[14] Szabó L, Soria A, Forsström J, Keränen JT, Hytönen E. A world model of the pulp
and paper industry: demand, energy consumption and emission scenarios to 2030
☆. Environ Sci Policy 2009;12:257–69.
[15] Lindmark M, Bergquist AK, Andersson LF. Energy transition, carbon dioxide re-
duction and output growth in the Swedish pulp and paper industry: 1973–2006.
Energy Policy 2011;39:5449–56.
[16] Kayo C, Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y. Paper and paperboard demand and associated
carbon dioxide emissions in Asia through 2050. J Ind Ecol 2012;16:529–40.
[17] Fontini F, Pavan G. The European Union Emission Trading System and technolo-
gical change: the case of the Italian pulp and paper industry. Energy Policy
2014;68:603–7.
[18] Jönsson J, Berntsson T. Analysing the potential for implementation of CCS within
the European pulp and paper industry. Energy 2012;44:641–8.
[19] Meza Solana AdJ, Juárez Nájera M. Cost-effective advantages due to clean tech-
nologies: water compliance scenarios for a Mexican paper mill. J Clean Prod
2016;112:4701–9.
[20] Gulbrandsen LH, Stenqvist C. The limited effect of EU emissions trading on cor-
porate climate strategies: comparison of a Swedish and a Norwegian pulp and paper
company. Energy Policy 2013;56:516–25.
[21] Judl J, Koskela S, Mattila T, Jouttijärvi T. The climate change implications of off-
shoring Finnish pulp production to South America. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2011;16:878–85.
[22] Lopes E, Dias A, Arroja L, Capela I, Pereira F. Application of life cycle assessment to
the Portuguese pulp and paper industry. J Clean Prod 2003;11:51–9.
[23] Das TK, Houtman C. Evaluating chemical-, mechanical-, and bio-pulping processes
and their sustainability characterization using life-cycle assessment. Environ Prog
2004;23:347–57.
[24] González-García S, Berg S, Feijoo G, Ma TM. Environmental impacts of forest
production and supply of pulpwood: Spanish and Swedish case studies. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2009;14:340–53.
[25] Sevigné-Itoiz E, Gasol CM, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X. Methodology of supporting
decision-making of waste management with material flow analysis (MFA) and
consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA): case study of waste paper recycling. J
Clean Prod 2015;105:253–62.
[26] Sebastião D, Gonçalves MS, Marques S, Fonseca C, Gírio F, Oliveira AC, et al. Life
cycle assessment of advanced bioethanol production from pulp and paper sludge.
832
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
Bioresour Technol 2016;208:100–9.
[27] Pro Carton-Association of European Cartonboard and Carton Manufacturers.
Cartonboard packaging: a resource and carbon efficient packaging solution. Pro
Carton; 2016.
[28] Sebri M. Use renewables to be cleaner: meta-analysis of the renewable energy
consumption–economic growth nexus. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:657–65.
[29] Soon J-J, Ahmad S-A. Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-
to-pay for renewable energy use. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:877–87.
[30] Lopes Silva DA, Delai I, Delgado Montes ML, Roberto Ometto A. Life cycle assess-
ment of the sugarcane bagasse electricity generation in Brazil. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;32:532–47.
[31] Morales M, Quintero J, Conejeros R, Aroca G. Life cycle assessment of lig-
nocellulosic bioethanol: environmental impacts and energy balance. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;42:1349–61.
[32] García CA, Manzini F, Islas JM. Sustainability assessment of ethanol production
from two crops in Mexico. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;72:1199–207.
[33] Patel M, Zhang X, Kumar A. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lig-
nocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1486–99.
[34] Ingwersen W, Gausman M, Weisbrod A, Sengupta D, Lee SJ, Bare J, et al. Detailed
life cycle assessment of Bounty ®; paper towel operations in the United States. J
Clean Prod 2016;131:509–22.
[35] Silva DAL, Lahr FAR, Garcia RP, Freire FMCS, Ometto AR. Life cycle assessment of
medium density particleboard (MDP) produced in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2013;18:1404–11.
[36] Chiew YL, Shimada S. Current state and environmental impact assessment for uti-
lizing oil palm empty fruit bunches for fuel, fiber and fertilizer – A case study of
Malaysia. Biomass- Bioenergy 2013;51:109–24.
[37] Weiss M, Haufe J, Carus M, Brandão M, Bringezu S, Hermann B, et al. A review of
the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J Ind Ecol 2012;16:S169–81.
[38] Jensen AA, Hoffman L, Møller BT, Schmidt A, Christiansen K, Elkington J, et al. Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) - A Guide to Approaches, Experiences and Information
Sources. European Environment Agency. Environmental Management; 1998.
[39] Lindfors L, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen O, et al.
Nordic guidelines on life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1995;1:45–8.
[40] Demisse Gemechu E, Butnar I, Pons A, Castells F. A comparison of the GHG emis-
sions caused by manufacturing tissue paper from virgin pulp or recycled waste
paper. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:1618–28.
[41] Mourad AL, Silva HLGD, Nogueira JCB. Life cycle assessment of cellulose packaging
materials production: folding box board and kraftliner paper. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2014;19:968–76.
[42] González-García S, Moreira MT, Artal G, Maldonado L, Feijoo G. Environmental
impact assessment of non-wood based pulp production by soda-anthraquinone
pulping process. World Pulp Pap 2010;18:137–45.
[43] Dias AC, Arroja L. Comparison of methodologies for estimating the carbon footprint
– case study of office paper. J Clean Prod 2012;24:30–5.
[44] Dias AC, Arroja L, Capela I. Life Cycle Assessment of printing and writing paper
produced in Portugal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2007;12:521–8.
[45] Zhang M. Life cycle assessment of forestry (pulp) and paper-making industry
[Master thesis]. Northeast Forestry University; 2011. [in Chinese].
[46] Cui Z, Hong J, Ismail ZZ. Life cycle assessment of coated white board: a case study
in China. J Clean Prod 2011;19:1506–12.
[47] Ren L. Methodology research and typical paper products of life cycle assessment
[Master thesis]. Beijing University of Technology; 2011. [in Chinese].
[48] Boguski TK. Life cycle carbon footprint of the National Geographic magazine. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:635–43.
[49] Yoonlin C, Shimada S. Current state and environmental impact assessment for
utilizing oil palm empty fruit bunches for fuel, fiber and fertilizer - a case study of
Malaysia. Biomass- Bioenergy 2013;51:109–24.
[50] Counsell TAM, Allwood JM. Reducingclimate change gas emissions by cutting out
stages in the life cycle of office paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007;49:340–52.
[51] Ghose A, Chinga-Carrasco G. Environmental aspects of Norwegian production of
pulp fibres and printing paper. J Clean Prod 2013;57:293–301.
[52] Mourad AL, Silva HLGD, Nogueira JCB. Life cycle assessment of cellulose packaging
materials production: folding box board and kraftliner paper. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2014;19:968–76.
[53] Mourad AL, Silva HLGD, Nogueira JCB. Carton for beverage—A decade of process
efficiency improvements enhancing its environmental profile. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2012;17:176–83.
[54] Manda BMK, Blok K, Patel MK. Innovations in papermaking: an LCA of printing and
writing paper from conventional and high yield pulp. Sci Total Environ
2012;439:307–20.
[55] Hong J, Li X. Environmental assessment of recycled printing and writing paper: a
case study in China. Waste Manag 2012;32:264–70.
[56] Dias AC, Arroja L. Comparison of methodologies for estimating the carbon footprint
– case study of office paper. J Clean Prod 2012;24:30–5.
[57] Silva DAL, Pavan ALR, Oliveira JAD, Ometto AR. Life cycle assessment of offset
paper production in Brazil: hotspots and cleaner production alternatives. J Clean
Prod 2015;93:222–33.
[58] Iosip A, Dobon A, Hortal M, Bobu E. The influence of contaminants in the en-
vironmental impact of recovered paper: a life cycle assessment perspective. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 2012;17:1050–8.
[59] ENVIRON International Cooperation. Life Cycle Assessment of Deinked and Virgin
Pulp FINAL; 2012.
[60] Vieira RDS, Canaveira P, Simões AD, Domingos T. Industrial hemp or eucalyptus
paper? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:368–75.
M. Sun et al.
[61] Sun M, Wang Y, Shi L. Environmental performance of straw-based pulp making: a
life cycle perspective. Sci Total Environ 2018;616–617:753–62.
[62] Gonzálezgarcía S, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Romero J, Feijoo G. Environmental
impact assessment of total chlorine free pulp from Eucalyptus globulus in Spain.
World Pulp Pap 2009;17:1010–6.
[63] Leon J, Aliaga C, Boulougouris G, Hortal M, Marti JL. Quantifying GHG emissions
savings potential in magazine paper production: a case study on supercalendered
and light-weight coated papers. J Clean Prod 2015;103:301–8.
[64] Kasah T. LCA of a newsprint paper machine: a case study of capital equipment. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 2013;19:417–28.
[65] James K. An investigation of the relationship between recycling paper and card and
greenhouse gas emissions from land use change. Resour Conserv Recycl
2012;67:44–55.
[66] Eriksson E, Karlsson PE, Halleberg L, Jelse K. Carbon footprint of cartons in Europe -
833
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 823–833
Carbon Footprint methodology and biogenic carbon sequestration. Götenborg,
Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute; 2010.
[67] Dias AC, Lopes E, Arroja L, Capela I, Pereira FA. Life cycle assessment of paper
production from Eucalyptus globulus. case study of the Portuguese industry. Appita
J 2002;1:21–6.
[68] Gemechu ED, Butnar I, Gomà-Camps J, Pons A, Castells F. A comparison of the GHG
emissions caused by manufacturing tissue paper from virgin pulp or recycled waste
paper. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:1618–28.
[69] Leponiemi A. Non-wood pulping possibilities - A challenge for the chemical pulping
industry. Appita J 2008;61:234–43.
[70] Kaur D, Bhardwaj NK, Lohchab RK. Prospects of rice straw as a raw material for
paper making. Waste Manag 2017;60:127–39.
[71] Čuček L, Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z. A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring
impacts on sustainability. J Clean Prod 2012;34:9–20.