IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i5p636-d804568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Impact Analysis of Natural Cork Stopper Manufacturing

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Javier Flor-Montalvo

    (Higher School of Engineering and Technology, International University of La Rioja (UNIR), 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain)

  • Eduardo Martínez-Cámara

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain)

  • Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz

    (Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez, Ciudad Juárez 32315, Mexico)

  • Emilio Jiménez-Macías

    (Department of Electrical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain)

  • Juan-Ignacio Latorre-Biel

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Public University of Navarra, Av de Tarazona s/n, 31500 Tudela, Navarra, Spain)

  • Julio Blanco-Fernández

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain)

Abstract

For both wine makers and customers, natural cork stoppers are a symbol of quality. Moreover, they are essential for maintaining the organoleptic properties of bottled wines throughout their lifespan. This research relied on the life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to analyze the relationship between the efficient usage of cork planks and the environmental impact of the cork stopper manufacturing industry. The goals of this research were to analyze and determine the environmental impact of producing 1 kg of natural cork stoppers. The analysis considered cork stoppers of two sizes—24 × 44 mm and 26 × 44 mm—and two manufacturing methods—punching and turning. Our findings indicated that the 24 × 44 mm cork stoppers produced with the punching method had a slightly lower environmental impact (1.36 kg CO 2 eq/kg) across the ten analyzed impact categories. Conversely, 26 × 44 mm turned corks had the highest impact on the environment (1.49 kg CO 2 eq/kg). Additionally, a comparison of same-sized punched and turned cork stoppers showed that the former had a lower environmental impact. This phenomenon is directly related to plank usage. In conclusion, there is a clear relationship between environmental impact and the efficient usage of raw material. In turn, an efficient usage of raw material depends on both the manufacturing method and stopper size.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Javier Flor-Montalvo & Eduardo Martínez-Cámara & Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz & Emilio Jiménez-Macías & Juan-Ignacio Latorre-Biel & Julio Blanco-Fernández, 2022. "Environmental Impact Analysis of Natural Cork Stopper Manufacturing," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:636-:d:804568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/636/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/636/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fulvio Ardente & Maurizio Cellura, 2012. "Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(3), pages 387-398, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roffeis, Martin & Fitches, Elaine C. & Wakefield, Maureen E. & Almeida, Joana & Alves Valada, Tatiana R. & Devic, Emilie & Koné, N’Golopé & Kenis, Marc & Nacambo, Saidou & Koko, Gabriel K.D. & Mathijs, 2020. "Ex-ante life cycle impact assessment of insect based feed production in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Allacker, K. & Mathieux, F. & Manfredi, S. & Pelletier, N. & De Camillis, C. & Ardente, F. & Pant, R., 2014. "Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Pina, Eduardo A. & Lozano, Miguel A. & Serra, Luis M., 2018. "Thermoeconomic cost allocation in simple trigeneration systems including thermal energy storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 170-184.
    4. Andrea Bragaglio & Aristide Maggiolino & Elio Romano & Pasquale De Palo, 2022. "Role of Corn Silage in the Sustainability of Dairy Buffalo Systems and New Perspective of Allocation Criterion," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-24, June.
    5. Ilkka Leinonen & Michael MacLeod & Julian Bell, 2018. "Effects of Alternative Uses of Distillery By-Products on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Scottish Malt Whisky Production: A System Expansion Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Julia Wenger & Stefan Pichler & Annukka Näyhä & Tobias Stern, 2022. "Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Luca Ciacci & Ivano Vassura & Fabrizio Passarini, 2018. "Shedding Light on the Anthropogenic Europium Cycle in the EU–28. Marking Product Turnover and Energy Progress in the Lighting Sector," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Pina, Eduardo A. & Lozano, Miguel A. & Serra, Luis M., 2018. "Allocation of economic costs in trigeneration systems at variable load conditions including renewable energy sources and thermal energy storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 633-646.
    9. Stamp, Anna & Althaus, Hans-Jörg & Wäger, Patrick A., 2013. "Limitations of applying life cycle assessment to complex co-product systems: The case of an integrated precious metals smelter-refinery," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 85-96.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:636-:d:804568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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