Visible/Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Devices and Wet-Chem Analyses for Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) Quality Assessment: An Environmental Performance Comparison
Table 8
Environmental impact percentage responsibilities of the three chemical analyses.
Impact category
Unit
Total
Percentage responsibility (%)
Pool of three chemical analyses
TA
pH
TSS
GWP
kg CO2 eq
1.66
50.7
49.0
0.3
ODP
kg CFC11 eq
2.40 × 10−6
45.1
54.8
0.1
IRP
kBq Co-60 eq
6.69 × 10−2
58.8
40.4
0.9
HOFP
kg Nox eq
2.16 × 10−3
47.0
52.5
0.5
PMPF
kg PM2,5 eq
1.45 × 10−3
47.5
51.9
0.6
EOFP
kg Nox eq
2.26 × 10−3
47.0
52.5
0.5
TAP
kg SO2 eq
3.72 × 10−3
45.9
53.5
0.6
FEP
kg P eq
4.45 × 10−4
49.1
50.4
0.5
MEP
kg N eq
2.89 × 10−4
20.4
79.1
0.5
TETP
kg 1.4-DCB
3.39
49.0
50.6
0.4
FET
kg 1.4-DCB
1.25 × 10−1
39.9
59.7
0.4
METP
kg 1.4-DCB
1.23 × 10−1
48.5
51.1
0.4
HTPc
kg 1.4-DCB
4.61 × 10−2
47.4
52.2
0.4
HTPnc
kg 1.4-DCB
1.84
42.4
57.0
0.5
LU
m2a crop eq
1.76 × 10−1
16.6
82.2
1.2
SOP
kg Cu eq
1.39 × 10−2
48.3
51.6
0.2
FFP
kg oil eq
3.15 × 10−1
50.6
49.0
0.5
WCP
m3
4.71 × 10−2
23.0
76.6
0.4
Impact categories and acronyms are defined in Table 7.
