Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 12;17(20):7414.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207414.

Carbon Footprint of a Port Infrastructure from a Life Cycle Approach

Rodrigo Saravia de Los Reyes  1 , Gonzalo Fernández-Sánchez  1 , María Dolores Esteban  1 , Raúl Rubén Rodríguez  1
Affiliations

Carbon Footprint of a Port Infrastructure from a Life Cycle Approach

Rodrigo Saravia de Los Reyes et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

One of the most important consequences caused by the constant development of human activity is the uncontrolled generation of greenhouse gases (GHG). The main gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O) are illustrated by the carbon footprint. To determine the impact of port infrastructures, a Life Cycle Assessment approach is applied that considers construction and maintenance. A case study of a port infrastructure in Spain is analyzed. Main results reflect the continuous emission of GHG throughout the useful life of the infrastructure (25 years). Both machinery (85%) and materials (15%) are key elements influencing the obtained results (117,000 Tm CO2e).

Keywords: carbon footprint; greenhouse gases emissions; life cycle assessment; port infrastructure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Posidonia meadow (in blue color) close to the construction area.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of the maintenance area to carry out the relevant work.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of the phases analyzed in this research: Results in percentage (%).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results of CO2 kg emissions obtained in each scenario: Construction phase.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Results of kg CO2e emissions obtained in scenario 3 compared to the base result.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Results of CO2e kg emissions obtained in scenario 4 compared to the base result.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Total greenhouse gases (GHG) distribution in scenario 4.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alavedra P., Dominguez J., Gonzalo E., Serra J. Sustainable construction: The state of the art. (In Spanish: La construcción sostenible: El estado de la cuestión) Inf. Constr. 1997;49:41–47. doi: 10.3989/ic.1997.v49.i451.936. - DOI
    1. Christini G., Fetsko M., Hendrickson C. Environmental management systems and ISO 14001 certification for construction firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004;130:330–336. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:3(330). - DOI
    1. Novara P. Introduction to Development Tools (In Spanish: Introducción a las Herramientas de Desarrollo) Report, 1–12. [(accessed on 5 June 2020)];2010 Available online: http://zinjai.sourceforge.net/Anexo1.pdf.
    1. Espíndola C., Valderrama J.O. Carbon footprint. Part 1: Concepts, estimation methods and methodological complexities (In Spanish: Huella del carbono. Parte 1: Conceptos, métodos de estimación y complejidades metodológicas) Inf. Tecnol. 2012;23:163–176. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07642012000100017. - DOI
    1. Curran M.A. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY, USA: 1996.

LinkOut - more resources