Sustainable Systems: Shopping Bags Life Cycle Assessment Report

This report presents a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparing paper and plastic shopping bags, utilizing GaBi software to evaluate their environmental impacts throughout their lifecycles, from raw material acquisition to disposal. The study highlights that paper bags, particularly those made from recycled materials, have a lower environmental footprint compared to plastic bags, which contribute significantly to pollution and waste. The assessment considers factors such as material usage, manufacturing processes, and end-of-life scenarios. The findings emphasize that the production of plastic bags releases more carbon emissions and that plastic waste does not biodegrade, leading to soil and environmental degradation. The report concludes by recommending the use of paper shopping bags as a more sustainable choice, supporting the 'going green' initiative, and promoting environmentally friendly practices. The second part of the report addresses energy efficiency analysis.

A Report on Sustainable Systems
Institution:
Student:
Date of Submission:

Contents
1. SHOPPING BAGS LIFE CYLCLE ASSEMENT REPORT.............................................................3
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................3
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4
Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi.........................................................................................................6
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................11
References...........................................................................................................................................12
2. A REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS..................................................................14
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................14
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................15
Cost Benefit Analysis..........................................................................................................................15
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................16
References...........................................................................................................................................17

1. SHOPPING BAGS LIFE CYLCLE ASSEMENT REPORT
Executive Summary
Life cycle assessment is described as a way of compiling and evaluating the inputs, the
outputs and the possible impacts of a product’s system throughout its life cycle. This implies
that conducting a life cycle assessment could mean developing and improving a product,
strategic planning, public policy making as well as marketing related activities (Xiliang, et
al., 2010). For this report, the analysis has been done using the GaBi software, a program that
is ISO certified.
We use GaBI for Life cycle assessment by looking at the product life by closely analysing the
aspects such as the input materials and output materials (Ban Marko & Krajacic, 2012). The
inputs consists of the raw material materials and the energy used in the production process of
a product (Christensen, 2010). On the other hand, the output include atmospheric emissions,
waterborne wastes, solid wastes, co- products and many other releases (Christensen, 2010). In
a nutshell, the specific areas which are looked at in the life cycle assessment include raw
materials, material processing, manufacturing and assembly and retirement and recovery
(Chau, et al., 2015).
In a nutshell, this study revealed that it requires a relatively little amount of materials to
manufacture a paper shopping bag than it is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the
manufacturing process of a plastic paper bag leads release of toxic carbon gases into the
atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping
bag, it is recommended to use the paper one. Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from
a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a plastic bag may also be recycle, recycling a paper
shopping bag is more eco- friendly than recycling a plastic bag.
Furthermore, plastic shopping bags causes a great amount of pollution when disposed of as
solid wastes (Connolly, et al., 2014). This implies that they lead to much environmental

population and degradation (De, et al., 2013). A product that causes environmental
degradation does not support the concept of environment sustainability. This again confirms
that given the two alternatives, it is better to choose a paper shopping bag over a plastic one
(Meyers, 2012).
Solid wastes from plastic shopping bags are not biodegradable. This means that they can
result into serious environment degradation (De, et al., 2013). They can cause degradation to
the soil. Plastic solid wastes can also cause soil pollution by causing eutrophication (Das, et
al., 2011). Therefore, when soil is polluted, the plant life is destroyed (Battarbee & Binney,
2008). This eventually causes the backward steps into the going green initiative. Plastic
wastes does not decompose. This implies that they cause ugly scenes in the surrounding
(Chau, et al., 2015). Hence, it is generally acceptable that a paper shopping bag is more
environmentally sustainable than a plastic shopping bag.
Introduction
The aim of this report is to give a relationship between two shopping bags made from
different raw materials. The two alternative materials are the plastic shopping bags and the
paper shopping bags. The assessment is based on the social, economic and environmental
impact of the life- cycle of the product, hat is from the point of manufacturing to the time of
retirement of disposal (Christensen, 2010). We look at the cycle right from the raw materials
to the disposal stage of these two alternative products.
Service required in this scenario is a suitable shopping bag that is economically affordable,
socially eco- friendly and environmentally friendly (Christensen, 2010). The sustainability of
the bags is sassed in terms of the its suitability towards being environmentally friendly bio-
degradable, recyclable, ozone friendly and contribution towards global warming (Veronica, et
al., 2011).

Two Alternatives of shopping bags that are considered in this report are paper and plastic
shopping bags. The life- cycle of these two products will be assessed using a GaBi software.
The assessment involve acquisition of raw material, processing of material, manufacturing
and assembly, the uses and services of the products and the retirement and retirement (Das, et
al., 2011) The assessment also involves the investigation of the possible materials that are re-
used, recycled or remanufactured (Lopez, et al., 2014)
GaBi software will be used for the life cycle assessment process. GaBi software is a program
for conducting life assessment modelling (Connolly, et al., 2014). The assessment is made up
of goal and scope definition, analysis of inventory, assessment of the impact and
interpretation of the results (Connolly, et al., 2014). The goal and scope definition involves
the analysis off the purpose of the life cycle analysis and the target audience of the
assessment (Litvinova & Kosulina, 2009). Inventory analysis involves very important units of
the assessment, the assessment boundaries and analysis of data assumptions considered and
likewise assessment limitations (Eleazer, et al., 2012). Impact assessment of the effects of the
products life cycle on the environment (De, et al., 2013). These effects are either atmospheric
effects on the social aspect as well as economic effect (Eleazer, et al., 2012).
Recommended procedure International Organization for Standardization have to be followed
in order to successfully assess the cycle in a clear specified manner (Eleazer, et al., 2012).
This procedure can be represented in a flow chart as shown in the diagram below. The flow
chart is a brief display of the steps proposed and supported by ISO for conducting a life cycle
assessment

Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi
The analysis in GaBi software defines the scope and the goal, analysis of inventory as well as
analysis of the possible or potential impact to the environment. Impact analysis and
interpretation (De, et al., 2013). This is a demonstration that the assessment is actually an
iterative process repeating again and again in order to achieve the desired outcome (Eleazer,
et al., 2012).
Goal definition provides another of aspects. These aspects include the aim of this assessment,
the potential groups, assessment decisions and degree of the decisions at hand (Dehnen,
2011). In our scenario, our objective is to deciding on whether to use a plastic shopping bag
or a paper shopping. The decision is based on impact of these two alternative products on the
environment and their contribution towards the going green initiative. The decision also
involves the sustainability in terms of the environmental effects, economic effects as well as
social effects.

Scope definition of the other hand tells much about the product scope of the product to be
assessed, the services that the product is capable of offering (the alternative products as well),
the portion of the product that should be included and finally the environmental exchanges
that are involved. The solution to base on this case is the effects that the two products (paper
and plastic shopping bags) have on the environment.
Environmental effects of a plastic water bottle is that the product is made from products that
are not bio- degradable. Impact assessment section on the other hand outlines the
consumption of resources and the potential impacts of the product use to the environment, to
the economy and the social aspect (Christensen, 2010). The assessment outlines important
impacts as well as those impacts that are considered as the most important. Similarly, we also
assess the possible data gaps that exists in the product manufacturing process.
The raw materials needed to manufacture the two different alternative products are shown in
the table below.
Type of shopping Bag Material Name Quantity
Plastic Shopping Bag 1. HDPE Plastic
2. Water
3. Fluorides
1. 405grams
2. 200milllitres
3. 250millitres
Paper shopping Bag 1. Recycled paper
2. Resins
1. 123grams
2. 125 grams
Impact analysis of the life cycle assessment is based on the GaBi output. GaBi analysis
reveals that it requires a relatively little amount of materials to manufacture a paper shopping
bag than it is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the manufacturing process of a plastic
paper bag leads release of toxic carbon gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve

the problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping bag, it is recommended to use the paper one.
Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a
plastic bag may also be recycled, recycling a paper shopping bag is more eco- friendly than
recycling a plastic bag.
The following output was obtained from the step by step analysis using GaBi.

Conclusion
It requires a relatively little amount of materials to manufacture a paper shopping bag than it
is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the manufacturing process of a plastic paper bag
leads release of toxic carbon gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve the
problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping bag, it is recommended to use the paper one.
Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a
plastic bag may also be recycle, recycling a paper shopping bag is more eco- friendly than
recycling a plastic bag. (Battarbee & Binney, 2008)
Furthermore, plastic shopping bags causes a great amount of pollution when disposed of as
solid wastes (Connolly, et al., 2014). This implies that they lead to much environmental
population and degradation (De, et al., 2013). A product that causes environmental
degradation does not support the concept of environment sustainability. This again confirms
that given the two alternatives, it is better to choose a paper shopping bag over a plastic one
(Meyers, 2012).

Solid wastes from plastic shopping bags are not biodegradable. This means that they can
result into serious environment degradation (De, et al., 2013). They can cause degradation to
the soil. Plastic solid wastes can also cause soil pollution by causing eutrophication (Das, et
al., 2011). Therefore, when soil is polluted, the plant life is destroyed (Battarbee & Binney,
2008). This eventually causes the backward steps into the going green initiative. Plastic
wastes does not decompose. This implies that they cause ugly scenes in the surrounding
(Chau, et al., 2015). Hence, it is generally acceptable that a paper shopping bag is more
environmentally sustainable than a plastic shopping bag.
References
Ban Marko & Krajacic, G., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of
renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.
Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene
Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Bulakho, V. L. & Gasso, V. Y., 2008. Role of Amphibians and Reptiles in Creation of an Ecologiccal
Buffer Against Technogenic Pollution. Volume 02, p. 4.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy,
Volume 143, p. 19.
Christensen, T. T., 2010. Solid Waste Technology & Management (Christensen/Solid Waste
Technology & Management) || Introduction to Waste Management. Volume 10, p. 16.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels
that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy,
73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable
Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization -
Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.

Das, K., Dey, U. & Bhaumik, R., 2011. A comparative study of lichen Biochemistry and air pollution
status of urban, semi urban and industrial area of hooghly and burdwan distric, west bengal. Volume
7, p. 13.
Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's atmosphere.
Volume 153, p. 15.
De, P. P., Wcquier, William & Cool, W., 2013. Level Radioactive Waste Management; Spent Fuel,
Fissile Material, Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste Management - The Belgian Program
for Low and Intermediate Short Lived Waste Management: From 1985 to License Application.
Volume 01, p. 09.
Diadchenko, O. & Kovalenko, L., 2008. Estimation of Atmospheric air Pollution Extent on City
Highways by Vehicles with Account of Traffic management. Volume 01, p. 04.
Dosmukhamedov, N. K., 2014. Choice and Justification of the Initial Charge in Processing Middlings,
Recycled Materials and Slag Lead Production. Volume 67, p. 3.
Eleazer, P. R., Lisa, M. C., Maark, A. W. & Andres, F. C., 2012. Comparison of algae cultivation
methods for bioenergy production using a combined life cycle assessment and life cycle costing
approach. Volume 126, p. 9.
Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment
conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. 180(107), p. 9.
Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Journal
of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.
Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production chain of oil-
rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09, p. 9.
Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated Environment.
20(10), p. 1.
Litvinova, T. & Kosulina, T., 2009. Recycling of Oil and Gas Complex Solid Wastes. Volume 10, p. 1.
Lopez, et al., 2014. Assessing changes on poly(ethylene terephthalate) properties after recycling:
Mechanical recycling in laboratory versus postconsumer recycled material. Volume 147, p. 11.
Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration
in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives, 25(10), p. 20.
Meyers, R. A., 2012. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology || Solid Waste solid
waste Disposal solid waste disposal and Recycling solid waste recycling , Introduction. Volume 3, p.
1472.
Mizgirev, D. S., 2015. The concept of improving environmental engineering systems for integrated
waste management ships (IWMS). Volume 01, p. 4.

Muthu, S. & Senthilkannan, 2015. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and
Processes] Environmental Implications of Recycling and Recycled Products || Recycled Paper from
Wastes: Calculation of Ecological Footprint of an Energy-Intensive Industrial Unit in Orissa, India.
Volume 287, p. 24.
Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable energy
integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.
Raban, K., 2009. Substantiation of necessity of performing regular monitoring researches of the Azov
sea water Pollution By Oil Products. Volume 10, p. 03.
Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare system
optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.
Seong, R. L., Donghee, P. & Jong, M. P., 2008. Analysis of effects of an objective function on
environmental and economic performance of a water network system using life cycle assessment
and life cycle costing methods. Volume 144, p. 11.
Simone, M. & Rana, P., 2013. Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste management
with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Volume 18, p. 7.
Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon
footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.
Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe" (Denmark)
Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.
Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high
concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.
Trogl, H. P. & Bravdyova, T., 2012. Comparison of compatibility of study programs Waste
management (J. E. pukyně university in ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) and Ecobiotechnology
(knrtu, Kazan, Russia). Volume 15, p. 04.
Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle
impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment. 36(109), p. 7.
Voloschynska, S. S., 2008. Bioindication of the Heavy Metals Environmental Pollution. Volume 02, p.
05.
Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable energies in
China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.

2. A REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
Executive Summary
Energy efficiency is defined as the suitability, effectiveness and sustainability of energy.
Efficiency of energy and energy source could also be measured in terms of the effect that it
has on the environment and the economy of its users. This report seeks to determine the level
of efficiency of an air conditioner, a product that is used both at home and in offices. The
level of efficiency has been investigated by closely analyzing its energy consumption rate, its
cost, the cost of energy, the source of energy, the possible dangers of this source or sources,
the economic and social suitability to its users (Diadchenko & Kovalenko, 2008) .
. Majorly, we focus on whether the product and its source of energy is sustainable (Bulakho
& Gasso, 2008). The analysis has been done to establish the effects of ozone layer, its
contribution to global warming, the cost and the durability. Air conditioner, the product we
are analyzing in this scenario uses electricity (Curran & Marry, 2012). The sources of
electricity depends on the choice of whoever uses it or its availability (Dosmukhamedov,
2014). The major common sources of electricity are water, geothermal and wind (Eleazer, et
al., 2012) (Fan, et al., 2011). Similarly, the other source of energy for an air conditioner is the
solar energy, which is readily available and is quite friendly to the environment (Frano,
2009). A cost benefit analysis has been done in the section that follows.
Notably, a standard air conditioner does not produce any dangerous gases into the atmosphere
(Voloschynska, 2008).The heat it produces does not heat the threshold to cause significant
change in the ozone layer, hence no global warming (Madgin, 2010). This is a demonstration
that air conditioner is actually environmentally eco- friendly.

The cost benefit analysis of the three options show that thy all result into the conservation of
energy which is enhancing efficiency (Goverdhan & Saikat, 2010). Moreover, it is clearly
demonstrated that it is, however, very important to always make reduction in the usage a
priority and only use it when it is really necessary (Gehrer, et al., 2014).
Introduction
The problem involves investigating a suitable way to evaluate the impacts of the product on
the environment (Battarbee & Binney, 2008). Majorly, we focus on whether the product and
its source of energy is sustainable (Bulakho & Gasso, 2008). The analysis has been done to
establish the effects of ozone layer, its contribution to global warming, the cost and the
durability. Air conditioner, the product we are analyzing in this scenario uses electricity
(Curran & Marry, 2012). The sources of electricity depends on the choice of whoever uses it
or its availability (Dosmukhamedov, 2014). The major common sources of electricity are
water, geothermal and wind (Eleazer, et al., 2012) (Fan, et al., 2011). Similarly, the other
source of energy for an air conditioner is the solar energy, which is readily available and is
quite friendly to the environment (Frano, 2009). A cost benefit analysis has been done in the
section that follows.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Relevant information about air conditioner as a product includes its energy consumption rate,
the price or cost, the possible emissions into the atmosphere, other effects to the users and its
contribution towards the going green agenda (Meyers, 2012). In our scenario, we take a case
of home air conditioner which is used daily by a family (Mizgirev, 2015). Let us take a case
of an air conditioner with a 2- stage compressor, uses geothermal power, has a thermostat and
relatively cheap (with a cost of $456) (Muthu & Senthilkannan, 2015). The consumption rate
of electricity is 4560W per week (Poul, 2009). There are no dangerous gases released into the

atmosphere by this device (Raban, 2009). The heat it produces does not heat the threshold to
cause significant change in the ozone layer, hence no global warming (Sarancha, et al., 2014).
Therefore, arguably, we could say that this product is actually environmentally eco- friendly
(Seong, et al., 2008).
Organization that promotes energy efficiency in Australia is the Energy efficiency council
which advocates for a number of measures to ensure efficiency of energy is met. One notable
thing is by promoting the voluntary energy saving and efficient use measures. The location is
selected to be Sydney (151° 12' 35.6400'' E) using the NSW selection guide.
Some of the opportunities to reduce energy consumption of an air conditioner is by adopting
moral practices of using it only when it is necessary (Simon, et al., 2008). Similarly, we could
reduce the amount of energy consumption by avoiding the purchase of heavy conditioners
that consumes significantly heavy amount of energy (Surviatkina, 2008).
A simple payback period calculation for three improvement options is shown below;
Simple Payback Period
Cost Reduction Reduction of Usage Moral Practices
Normal $459 $459 $459
Expected $459 $459 $420
Resulted $450 $300 $400
Benefits $9 $159 $20
Conclusion
From the analysis, it is clear that there are no dangerous gases released into the atmosphere
by this device (Simone & Rana, 2013). The heat it produces does not heat the threshold to
cause significant change in the ozone layer, hence no global warming (Suroviatkina &
Semenova, 2014). Therefore, arguably, we could say that this product is actually
environmentally eco- friendly (Trogl & Bravdyova, 2012).

The cost benefit analysis of the three options show that thy all result into the conservation of
energy which is enhancing efficiency (Goverdhan & Saikat, 2010). Moreover, it is clearly
demonstrated that it is, however, very important to always make reduction in the usage a
priority and only use it when it is really necessary (Gehrer, et al., 2014).
References
Ban Marko & Krajacic, G., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of
renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.

Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene
Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Bulakho, V. L. & Gasso, V. Y., 2008. Role of Amphibians and Reptiles in Creation of an Ecologiccal
Buffer Against Technogenic Pollution. Volume 02, p. 4.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy,
Volume 143, p. 19.
Christensen, T. T., 2010. Solid Waste Technology & Management (Christensen/Solid Waste
Technology & Management) || Introduction to Waste Management. Volume 10, p. 16.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels
that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy,
73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable
Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization -
Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.
Das, K., Dey, U. & Bhaumik, R., 2011. A comparative study of lichen Biochemistry and air pollution
status of urban, semi urban and industrial area of hooghly and burdwan distric, west bengal. Volume
7, p. 13.
Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's atmosphere.
Volume 153, p. 15.
De, P. P., Wcquier, William & Cool, W., 2013. Level Radioactive Waste Management; Spent Fuel,
Fissile Material, Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste Management - The Belgian Program
for Low and Intermediate Short Lived Waste Management: From 1985 to License Application.
Volume 01, p. 09.
Diadchenko, O. & Kovalenko, L., 2008. Estimation of Atmospheric air Pollution Extent on City
Highways by Vehicles with Account of Traffic management. Volume 01, p. 04.
Dosmukhamedov, N. K., 2014. Choice and Justification of the Initial Charge in Processing Middlings,
Recycled Materials and Slag Lead Production. Volume 67, p. 3.
Eleazer, P. R., Lisa, M. C., Maark, A. W. & Andres, F. C., 2012. Comparison of algae cultivation
methods for bioenergy production using a combined life cycle assessment and life cycle costing
approach. Volume 126, p. 9.
Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment
conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. 180(107), p. 9.
Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Journal
of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.

Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production chain of oil-
rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09, p. 9.
Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated Environment.
20(10), p. 1.
Litvinova, T. & Kosulina, T., 2009. Recycling of Oil and Gas Complex Solid Wastes. Volume 10, p. 1.
Lopez, et al., 2014. Assessing changes on poly(ethylene terephthalate) properties after recycling:
Mechanical recycling in laboratory versus postconsumer recycled material. Volume 147, p. 11.
Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration
in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives, 25(10), p. 20.
Meyers, R. A., 2012. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology || Solid Waste solid
waste Disposal solid waste disposal and Recycling solid waste recycling , Introduction. Volume 3, p.
1472.
Mizgirev, D. S., 2015. The concept of improving environmental engineering systems for integrated
waste management ships (IWMS). Volume 01, p. 4.
Muthu, S. & Senthilkannan, 2015. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and
Processes] Environmental Implications of Recycling and Recycled Products || Recycled Paper from
Wastes: Calculation of Ecological Footprint of an Energy-Intensive Industrial Unit in Orissa, India.
Volume 287, p. 24.
Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable energy
integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.
Raban, K., 2009. Substantiation of necessity of performing regular monitoring researches of the Azov
sea water Pollution By Oil Products. Volume 10, p. 03.
Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare system
optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.
Seong, R. L., Donghee, P. & Jong, M. P., 2008. Analysis of effects of an objective function on
environmental and economic performance of a water network system using life cycle assessment
and life cycle costing methods. Volume 144, p. 11.
Simone, M. & Rana, P., 2013. Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste management
with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Volume 18, p. 7.
Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon
footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.
Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe" (Denmark)
Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.
Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high
concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.

Trogl, H. P. & Bravdyova, T., 2012. Comparison of compatibility of study programs Waste
management (J. E. pukyně university in ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) and Ecobiotechnology
(knrtu, Kazan, Russia). Volume 15, p. 04.
Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle
impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment. 36(109), p. 7.
Voloschynska, S. S., 2008. Bioindication of the Heavy Metals Environmental Pollution. Volume 02, p.
05.
Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable energies in
China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.