CETvol87
DOI: 10.3303/CET2187067
Paper Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 10 February 2021; Accepted: 21 April 2021
Please cite this article as: Cibelli M., Cimini A., Moresi M., 2021, Environmental Profile of Organic Dry Pasta, Chemical Engineering
Transactions, 87, 397-402 DOI:10.3303/CET2187067
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS
VOL. 87, 2021
A publication of
The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.cetjournal.it
Guest Editors: Laura Piazza, Mauro Moresi, Francesco Donsì
Copyright © 2021, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608-85-3; ISSN 2283-9216
Environmental Profile of Organic Dry Pasta
Matteo Cibelli, Alessio Cimini, Mauro Moresi*
Department for Innovation in the Biological, Agrofood and Forestry Systems, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy
mmoresi@unitus.it
In this work, the cradle-to-grave environmental profile of an organic pasta production chain was assessed and
compared to that of a typical conventional one, by using a well-known life-cycle assessment software in
compliance with a few single- or multiple-issue standard methods. Both products relied on national durum
wheat grains, were made in Italian medium-sized pasta factories, and packed in 0.5-kg polypropylene bags.
All these methods identified the durum wheat cultivation and pasta cooking phases as the main hotspots. The
organic pasta production chain was characterized by 10-46% higher scores than conventional pasta, mainly
because the smaller organic grain yield per hectare requesting larger land occupation resulted in a greater
damage to the ecosystem quality.
1. Introduction
Dry pasta is a typical Italian food increasingly preferred worldwide. It is mainly produced in Italy, the USA,
Turkey, and Russia with circa 3.37, 2.0, 1.67, and 1.08 million Mg yr-1, respectively (IPO, 2018).
Owing to the increasing interest of the general consumer towards the environmental impact of the foods and
beverages of daily use, major pasta makers have started to assess the environmental impact of their
productions using the Environmental Product Declaration methodology (EPD®, 2018).The cradle-to-
distribution scores of the main impact categories (i.e., climate change, acidification, eutrophication, and
photochemical ozone creation potential) reported online at https://www.environdec.com/ are definitively quite
different, probably because of the diverse databases, agricultural techniques, processing conditions, or
distribution logistics accounted for. The main hotspots of such a production chain are usually associated with
durum wheat cultivation and home pasta consumption. According to Bevilacqua et al. (2007), the
environmental impact of the former might be reduced by reverting to organic agriculture, while that of the latter
was regarded as difficult to be mitigated in the short term, being external to the production network. Recchia et
al. (2019) compared the environmental sustainability of local and global pasta production chains and found
that the conventional pasta chain prevailed in terms of a more efficient exploitation of land and water
resources. In previous work (Cimini et al., 2020a), the cradle-to-grave environmental impact of 1 kg of dry
pasta, made of conventional durum wheat (DW) semolina, produced from a medium-sized pasta factory
located in the North of Italy and packed in 0.5-kg polypropylene (PP) bags, was investigated by using a well-
known life-cycle assessment (LCA) software in compliance with a few single- or multiple-issue standard
methods (Jungbluth, 2019). The aim of this work was to compare the above environmental profile to that of a
different chain of organic pasta production by using the same LCA software and standard methods.
2. Methodology
The life-cycle analysis was ISO-compliant (ISO, 2006a, b). Its goal was to assess the environmental profile of
1 kg of dried pasta made of organic durum wheat semolina, packed in 0.5-kg polypropylene (PP) bags, and
produced from a medium-sized pasta factory located in the Campania region of Italy, as well as to identify
their life-cycle hotspots. Figure 1 shows the system boundary examined. The upstream processes involved
the organic DW cultivation, production of seeds, organic fertilizers, and auxiliary and packaging materials, as
well as the electricity and fuel used in the agricultural treatments. The core processes comprised the
transportation of DW grains and packaging materials to the pasta factory, in situ DW milling, pasta
manufacture and packaging, disposal of by-products, and transportation of packed pasta to distribution
397
centers and sale points. Then, the downstream processes accounted for the pasta cooking, and disposal of all
packaging wastes formed. As concerning the inventory analysis, the so-called primary data (e.g., input
resources and outputs, transport modality and distances travelled) were collected or measured directly by
company (Cimini et al., 2019), while the secondary data were extracted from the databases (i.e., Agri-footprint
v. 4.0, Ecoinvent v. 3.5) embedded in the LCA software SimaPro 9.0.0.41 (PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, NL).
About 70% of the nominal non-irrigated land was used to grow DW, while the remaining 30% to fodder
legume, such soil area being managed with aged poultry manure compost. All the emissions from fertilized
soils were calculated according to EPD® (2013) and IPCC (2006), while the allocation factors for DW grains,
straw and below ground residues, semolina and milling byproducts, as well as dry pasta and pasta wastes,
were estimated as suggested by UNAFPA (2018). Approximately 0.71 kg of semolina was recovered from
conventional milling of 1 kg of organic DW. The primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging of dry pasta
consisted of a PP bag, a carton with a paper label, and an EPAL wooden pallet wrapped by a polyethylene
stretch film. The cooking energy and water requirements amounted to 2.3 kWh and 10 L per each kg of raw
pasta (UNAFPA, 2018). All post-consumer packaging wastes were disposed of according to the Italian waste
management scenarios (Cimini et al., 2019).
Figure 1: Dried pasta system boundary including the upstream, core and downstream processes: CW, cooking
water; EE, electric energy; EoL, end of life; PW, process water; Q, thermal energy; TR, transport.
The environmental impact was assessed in compliance with the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
(Frischknecht et al., 2007), Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050 or Carbon Footprint CF (BSI, 2011),
IMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003), and Product Environmental Footprint (PEF: EC, 2018) standard methods.
The CED or CF method accounts for just a single environmental impact category (IC), such as the renewable
and non-renewable energy demand indicator, and climate change over a 100-yr time horizon, respectively.
The IMPACT 2002+ method groups the 15 default ICs into four damage categories (DCz), these measuring the
damage to human health (HH), expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALY) lost because of an exposure
to toxic chemicals; to ecosystem quality (EQ), measured in potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of biological
species most likely not surviving in the geographical area examined; to climate change (CC) by referring to a
500-yr time-horizon; and to depletion of non-renewable resources (RD), quantified as the additional primary
energy required to extract a unit of mineral and non-renewable primary energy. Such DCs are normalized with
respect to the European population and then aggregated using a unitary weighting factor to yield an overall
weighted damage score (OWDSI). The PEF method accounts for 16 mid-point ICs, which may be normalized
with respect to their global impacts and weighted (Sala et al., 2017, 2018) to obtain another overall weighted
score (OWSP), this not accounting for the human and eco-toxicity ICs for their low robustness (UNAFPA,
2018).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Cumulative energy demand and carbon footprint of dry pasta
By referring to Figure 1, the CED analysis pointed out that the non-renewable (fossil, nuclear, primary forest)
and renewable (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) energy sources amounted to 32.8 MJe per kg of
organic dry pasta (Table 1), while those used for a conventional pasta was just 24.7 MJe kg
-1 (Cimini et al.,
2020a). The most impacting phase for organic pasta was DW cultivation, followed by home pasta
consumption, and pasta making and packaging. The cooking phase of conventional pasta was, on the
contrary, that most impacting. Since the organic DW crop yield was ~3.75 Mg ha-1 yr-1, just 61% of the
conventional one, the CED indicator and carbon footprint (CF) were 33% and 10% greater than those for
conventional pasta, respectively (Table 1). The organic pasta production chain was characterized by more
UPSTREAM PROCESSES CORE PROCESSES DOWNSTREAM PROCES
GRAINS
DRIED PASTA
TR
TR
TR
PACKAGING
MATERIAL
PRODUCTION
ORGANIC
DURUM WHEAT
CULTIVATION MILLING
PASTA
PRODUCTION & PACKAGING
EE QEE PW
EoL
Milling Byproducts
EoL
Pasta Byproducts
Q CW
EoL
Packaging Materials
PASTA COOKING
398
energy-efficient transformation processes, but burdened by a more impacting distribution logistics, exclusively
based on road transport (Cimini et al., 2019).
Table 1: Contribution of the different life cycle phases to the cradle-to-grave Cumulative Energy Demand
(CED) and Carbon Footprint (CF) of a functional unit (1 kg) of organic (this work) or conventional (Cimini et al.,
2020a) pasta packed in 0.5-kg PP bags in medium-sized pasta factories.
Pasta type Organic Pasta Conventional Pasta
Single-issue environmental impact CED CF CED CF
Life Cycle Phase [MJe kg
-1] [g CO2e kg
-1] [MJe kg
-1] [g CO2e kg
-1]
Field phase (FP) 12.83 845 5.38 585
Milling (MI) 1.20 66 1.68 89
Packaging material manufacture (PMP) 2.19 65 2.25 75
Pasta production (PPR) 3.46 188 4.13 239
Pasta packaging (PPACK) 0.60 30 0.32 16
Transport of final product (PDISTR) 2.32 139 0.88 54
Pasta cooking phase (CP) 11.81 649 12.32 759
End of life of packaging material wastes (EoLPM) -1.60 -1 -2.22 -12
Overall score 32.82 1,980 24.74 1,806
Table 2: Environmental profile of 1 kg of organic (this work) or conventional (Cimini et al., 2020a) pasta
packed in 0.5-kg PP bags, as estimated using the IMPACT 2002+ and PEF standard methods: Percentage
contribution of the two most impacting life cycle phases (i.e., field, FP, and pasta cooking, CP, phases), and
score of each mid-point impact category (ICj).
Impact category ICj Organic Pasta Unit Conventional
FP (%) CP (%) ICj Score ICj Score FP (%) CP (%)
IMPACT 2002+
Carcinogens 18.4 10.3 1.32x10-2 kg C2H3Cle 5.23x10
-2 4.7 71.8
Non-carcinogens 50.6 11.4 1.61x10-2 kg C2H3Cle 1.99x10
-2 25.9 48.6
Respiratory inorganics 55.2 17.6 1.20x10-3 kg PM2.5e 8.37x10
-4 51.3 13.9
Respiratory organics 49.7 16.1 5.03x10-4 kg C2H4e 4.26x10
-4 20.1 45.6
Ionizing radiation 66.5 14.1 25.5 Bq 14Ce 7.17 26.0 17.2
Ozone layer depletion 43.0 15.1 1.46x10-7 kg CFC-11e 1.51x10
-7 23.8 43.3
Aquatic ecotoxicity 28.2 11.8 125.1 kg TEG water 185.0 12.1 37.3
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 34.8 8.1 47.4 kg TEG soil 44.2 12.8 30.4
Terrestrial acidification/nutrification 57.5 18.3 4.62x10-2 kg SO2e 2.82x10
-2 50.3 9.8
Aquatic acidification 50.6 21.9 7.78x10-3 kg SO2e 5.28x10
-3 45.6 14.2
Aquatic eutrophication 92.8 3.6 1.13x10-3 kg PO4
3- 5.34x10-4 85.0 8.9
Land occupation 99.7 0.05 5.32 m2 org. arable 2.42 100.0 0.03
Global warming (GW500) 39.3 34.7 1.76 kg CO2e 1.56 28.0 44.7
Non-renewable energy 34.1 37.2 27.6 MJ primary 23.8 17.1 51.3
Mineral extraction 52.9 27.8 2.42x10-2 MJ surplus 3.6x10-2 75.0 15.1
PEF
Climate change (GW100) 43.6 32.2 2.05 kg CO2e 1.88 33.5 41.4
Ozone depletion 40.6 14.1 1.58x10-7 kg CFC-11e 1.74x10
-7 22.2 44.8
Ionising radiation, Human Health 66.5 14.1 2.51x10-1 kBq 235Ue 7.05x10
-2 26.1 17.2
Photochemical ozone formation-HH 61.6 13.4 5.26x10-3 kg NMVOCe 4.07 x10
-3 47.1 18.4
Particulate matter 59.6 14.5 8.59x10-8 disease inc. 5.00 x10-8 62.2 8.3
Human toxicity, non-cancer 51.1 13.0 1.27x10-7 CTUh 1.16x10
-7 34.6 33.2
Human toxicity, cancer 61.1 16.0 1.12x10-8 CTUh 1.08x10
-8 48.8 31.5
Acidification 49.6 22.6 1.02x10-2 mol H+e 6.64x10
-3 45.0 13.5
Eutrophication freshwater 72.5 12.2 5.51x10-4 kg Pe 3.01x10
-4 61.7 12.4
Eutrophication marine 73.5 9.4 2.62x10-3 kg Ne 2.08x10
-3 57.5 15.6
Eutrophication terrestrial 58.3 18.1 3.68x10-2 mol Ne 2.16x10
-2 51.1 8.5
Ecotoxicity freshwater 40.5 5.7 1.04 CTUe 9.26x10
-1 37.9 26.8
Land use 99.3 0.3 619 Pt 296 101.9 0.1
Water scarcity 14.0 66.6 8.32x10-1 m3 depriv. 4.23x10-1 51.4 0.1
Resource use, fossils 34.4 37.9 26.7 MJ 21.9 17.8 50.5
Resource use, minerals and metals 57.2 21.3 2.99 x10-6 kg Sbe 2.16x10
-6 71.5 13.0
3.2 Environmental profile of dry pasta
Table 2 compares the mid-point impact categories (IC) of one functional unit of organic pasta to those of a
conventional pasta (Cimini et al., 2020a). By referring to the IMPACT 2002+ method, the organic field phase
399
exerted its prevailing effect on the ICs of land occupation, aquatic eutrophication, ionizing radiation, terrestrial
acidification and nutrification, respiratory inorganics, mineral extraction, non-carcinogens, and aquatic
acidification. These ICs prevalently affected the conventional pasta too, even if the contribution of mineral
extraction was higher owing to the use of fossil-derived fertilizers. The impact category of non-renewable
energy mainly influenced the cooking phase of both pasta types examined. The packaging material
manufacture was the life cycle phase mainly contributing to the ICs of carcinogens and aquatic ecotoxicity in
the case of organic pasta, or of terrestrial eco-toxicity and aquatic eco-toxicity for conventional pasta (data not
shown for simplicity).
According to the PEF method, the organic field phase was that mostly affecting the impact categories of land
use, marine and freshwater eutrophication, ionizing radiation, photochemical ozone formation, human toxicity-
cancer, particulate matter, terrestrial eutrophication, and resource use-minerals and metals. The use phase of
organic pasta considerably influenced the ICs of water scarcity, resource use-fossils, and climate change. The
estimated water scarcity indicator, expressing the relative available water remaining per area in a watershed
once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems had been met, was quite the double of that referred to
conventional pasta, which on turn was chiefly controlled by the field phase (Table 2). The global warming
scores (2.05 vs. 1.88 kg CO2e kg
-1) differed from those (1.76 or 1.56 kg CO2e kg
-1) estimated using the
IMPACT 2002+ method, since the latter makes use of 500-yr time horizon global warming potentials
(Houghton et al., 2001), while the PEF method of the 100-yr time-horizon potentials updated by Myhre et al.
(2013). Overall, the environmental profile of both pasta products by and large agreed with the PEF
characterization benchmark values of dry pasta (UNAFPA, 2018).
The end-point characterization of the environmental profile of organic pasta in conformity with the IMPACT
2002+ and PEF methods is shown in Table 3. The damage impact on HH and EQ mainly derived from the field
phase, while that on CC and RD from the consumer phase. A similar damage impact originated from
conventional pasta. Particularly, the impact on EQ, which accounts for the contribution of four normalized
impact categories (i.e., aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity, terrestrial acidification and nutrification, and land
occupation), was primarily dependent on the damage characterization factor for land occupation (Jolliet et al.,
2003). Thus, the lower organic crop yield per hectare than the conventional one increased the damage to EQ
from 3.02 to 6.23 PDF m2 yr. The weighted damage score relative to EQ for organic pasta was about the
double of that for conventional pasta, while those relative to HH, CC, RD were 13-16% greater than the
corresponding ones for conventional pasta. Finally, the overall weighted damage score (OWDSI) amounted to
946 micropoints (µPt) per kg of organic pasta or to ~647 µPt per kg of conventional pasta (Cimini et al.,
2020a). OWDSI firstly stemmed from the damage to EQ (48%), and then from that to both CC and RD (38%),
the organic field phase contributing up to 67% of its overall value. In the case of conventional pasta, the
overall score originated from the damage to CC+RD (48.5%) and then to EQ (~34%) with 48.5% contribution
of the field phase.
Table 3: End-point characterization of the environmental profile of 1 kg of organic (this work) or conventional
(Cimini et al., 2020a) dried pasta packed in 0.5-kg PP bags according to the IMPACT 2002+, and PEF
standard methods: percentage contribution of the two most impacting life cycle stages (symbols as in Table
1), single (SSz) and weighted (WDSz) damage scores of each damage category (DCz), and overall weighted
scores (OWDSI, and OWSP).
Damage category (DCz) Organic Pasta Conventional Pasta
FP (%) PC (%) SSZ WDSz (µPt) FP (%) PC (%) SSZ WDSz (µPt)
IMPACT 2002+
Human health (HH) 53.5 17.0 9.30x10-7 α 131 40.8 27.1 7.91x10-7 α 112
Ecosystem quality (EQ) 95.4 0.7 6.23 β 455 89.2 3.8 3.02 β 221
Climate change (CC) 39.3 34.7 1.76 γ 178 28.0 44.7 1.56 γ 157
Resource depletion (RD) 34.1 37.2 27.7 δ 182 17.2 51.3 23.9 δ 157
OWDSI 67.2 16.4 - 946 48.5 29.3 - 647
PEF
OWSP 57.1 23.1 - 195 44.5 29.9 - 141
α DALY β PDF m2 yr γ kg CO2e δ MJ primary
By referring to the aggregated single score (OWSP) of the PEF method, that for organic pasta was equal to
195 µPt, this being 39% greater than that for conventional pasta (~141 µPt). Even with the PEF method, both
scores were firstly affected by the agricultural phase (57% vs. 45%) and secondly by the pasta cooking one
(23% vs. 30%). Despite the characterization factors used by the PEF method are representative for the global
scale instead of the European scale as considered by the IMPACT 2002+ one, both methods not only
conveyed the same damage assessment, but also identified the same primary and secondary hotspots of the
400
dry pasta life cycle. Some ICs were characterized by different scores deriving from the models used for their
calculation (Cimini et al. 2020a).
3.3 Options to reduce the environmental profile of dry pasta
Any mitigation action should aim at reducing firstly the damage to EQ and secondly that to CC and RD.
Several studies have demonstrated that organic farming for durum wheat cultivation, avoiding the use of
fossil-derived fertilizers and pesticides, is a low-carbon agriculture with smaller greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions per hectare than the conventional wheat cultivation. Unfortunately, its lower productivity asks for
more cultivated land, and unfortunately this greatly enhances the damage to EQ.
The carbon footprint of durum grains is significantly influenced by the crop rotation system used (Gan et al.,
2011), this being also validated by four-year rotation crop experiments conducted in selected areas by Ruini et
al. (2013) with grain yields varying from ~7.5 Mg ha-1 in Northern Italy to 4.2-5.0 Mg ha-1 in Southern Italy. The
lowest environmental impact involved the rotation of durum wheat with fodder and land occupation of one
hectare every two years. In the organic farming examined here, ~70% of the nominal non-irrigated land was
cultivated with DW, while the remaining 30% with alfalfa, its land occupation totaling 1.4 ha every two years.
Thus, since such organic farming was more productive than the best one tested in Southern Italy by Ruini et
al. (2013), the only option that might mitigate the environmental impact of the field phase would be to apply
such an organic DW cultivation in the same cultivation areas of Northern Italy experimented by Ruini et al.
(2013) in the hope of increasing the organic DW yield from ~3.75 to 7.5 Mg ha-1 yr-1. In these conditions, the
organic pasta chain mentioned above would be characterized by a CED indicator, a Carbon Footprint, and
overall weighted scores OWDSI and OWSP of 26.4 MJe, 1.58 kg CO2e, and 629 µPt and 140 µPt per kg of
organic pasta, respectively, with an environmental profile approaching to that of the typical conventional pasta
chain. As concerning the other life cycle phases, the transformation and transportation ones in both chains
appeared to have been already optimized, their associated impacts representing 20-25% of the overall CED
indicator and carbon footprint (Table 1). Finally, the environmental impact of the home pasta cooking phase
might be minimized by resorting to more energy-efficient appliances, such as the novel Arduino®-based eco-
sustainable pasta cooker operating with a water-to-pasta ratio of 3±1 L kg-1 and an electricity consumption of
0.6±0.1 kWh kg-1 (Cimini et al. 2020b).
4. Conclusions
The cradle-to-grave environmental impact of organic dry pasta was investigated using an LCA approach and
compared to that of a typical conventional pasta. The CED analysis, carbon footprint, and global
environmental impact using the IMPACT 2002+ and PEF standard methods allowed the same hotspots (i.e.,
durum wheat cultivation and pasta cooking) to be identified. Nevertheless, the general consumer should be
conscious that organic pasta production is characterized by 10-46% higher scores than conventional pasta,
mainly because the current smaller organic grain yield per hectare increases land occupation and,
consequently, results in a greater damage to the ecosystem quality. By assuming to transfer the present
organic farming to other cultivation areas where higher crop yields had been already experienced, it was
possible to align the environmental impact of the organic pasta chain to that of the conventional pasta chain,
this confirming the paramount impact of the agricultural phase on the damage to the ecosystem quality.
Conversely, the replacement of the gas-fired hobs, mainly used in Italy, with novel eco-sustainable pasta
cookers might relieve the damage to climate change and resource depletion. In conclusion, the business-to-
business environmental impact of conventional or organic dry pasta might be reduced with the help of more
sustainable DW cultivation and less energy- and water-consuming home appliances.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Italian Ministry of Instruction, University and Research, special grant
PRIN 2015 - prot. 2015MFP4RC_002.
References
Bevilacqua M., Braglia M., Carmignani G., Zammori F.A., 2007, Life cycle assessment of pasta production in
Italy, Journal of Food Quality, 30, 932-952.
BSI, 2011, PAS 2050: 2011. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
goods and services, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
Cimini A., Cibelli M., Moresi M., 2019, Cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of dried organic pasta: assessment
and potential mitigation measures, Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(12), 5303-5318.
401
Cimini A., Cibelli M., Moresi M., 2020a, Environmental impact of pasta, Chp. 5, In C Galanakis (Ed.),
Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption, Academic Press, S. Diego, CA,
USA, 101-127.
Cimini A., Cibelli M., Moresi M., 2020b, Development and assessment of a home eco-sustainable pasta
cooker, Food and Bioproducts Processing, 122, 291-302.
EC (European Commission), 2018, Product Environmental Footprint category rules guidance 3, Version 6.3,
<//eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3-2.pdf> accessed 27.03.2021.
EPD®, 2013, Arable crops, Product category classification: UN CPC 011, 014, 017, 019, Version 2.0,
<www.environdec.com/PCR/Detail/?Pcr=8804 > accessed 7.11.2020.
EPD®, 2018, Characterisation factors for default impact assessment categories,<
www.environdec.com/Creating-EPDs/Steps-to-create-an-EPD/Perform-LCA-study/Characterisation-
factors-for-default-impact-assessment-categories/ > accessed 7.11.2020.
Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., Althaus H.-J., Doka G., Dones R., Heck T., Hellweg S., Hischier R., Nemecek
T., Rebitzer G., Spielmann M., 2007, Overview and Methodology, Ecoinvent report No. 1, v2.0, Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH.
Gan Y., Liang C., Wang X., McConkey B., 2011, Lowering carbon footprint of durum wheat by diversifying
cropping systems, Field Crops Research, 122, 199-206.
Houghton J.T., Ding Y., Griggs D.J., Noguer M., van der Linden P.J., Dai X., Maskell K., Johnson C.A., 2001,
Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2006, N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application, Chp. 11,
In HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara, K Tanabe (Ed.s), 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, IGES, Kanagawa Japan.
<www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html> accessed 18.12.2020.
IPO (International Pasta Organization), 2018, World pasta production, <www.internationalpasta.org>
accessed 8.11.2020.
ISO, 2006a, 14040-Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework.
International Organization for Standardization, Genève, CH.
ISO, 2006b, 14044-Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines.
International Organization for Standardization, Genève, CH.
Jolliet O., Margni M., Charles R., Humbert S., Payet J., Rebitzer G., Rosenbaum R., 2003, IMPACT 2002+: a
new life cycle impact assessment methodology, International Journal LCA, 8, 324-330.
Jungbluth N., 2019, Description of life cycle impact assessment methods, Supplementary information for
tenders, ESU-services Ltd, Schaffhausen, CH, <www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/tender/ESU-
Description-of-LCIAmethods.pdf > accessed 18.12.2020.
Myhre G., Shindell D., Bréon F.-M., Collins W., Fuglestvedt J., Huang J., Koch D., Lamarque J.-F., Lee D.,
Mendoza B., Nakajima T., Robock A., Stephens G., Takemura T., Zhang H., 2013, Anthropogenic and
natural radiative forcing, Chp. 8, In TF Stocker, D Qin, G-K Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A
Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex, PM Midgley (Ed.s), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis, Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 731-738.
Recchia L., Cappelli A., Cini E., Garbati Pegna F., Boncinelli P., 2019, Environmental sustainability of pasta
production chains: An integrated approach for comparing local and global chains, Resources, 8, 56, 2-16.
Ruini L., Ferrari E., Meriggi P., Marino M., Sessa F., 2013, Increasing the sustainability of pasta production
through a life cycle assessment approach, Paper presented at the 4th International Workshop Advances in
Cleaner Production, São Paulo, Brazil,
<www.advancesincleanerproduction.net/fourth/files/sessoes/4b/7/ruini_et_al_report.pdf> accessed
27.03.2021.
Sala S., Cerutti A.K., Pant R., 2018, Development of a weighting approach for the Environmental Footprint,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Sala S., Crenna E., Secchi M., Pant R., 2017, Global normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint and
Life Cycle Assessment, JRC Scientic Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
UNAFPA (Unions de Associations de Fabricants de Pâtes Alimentaires), 2018, Product Environmental
Footprint category rules (PEFCR) for dry pasta, Vers. 3,
<ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/Dry%20pasta%20PEFCR_final.pdf> accessed 8.11.2020.
402