Emanuele Bonamente

Dr. Emanuele Bonamente

Physics Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2016 in Science of The Total Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Emanuele BonamenteEmanuele Bonamente
Emanuele Bonamente
FSFlavio Scrucca
Flavio Scrucca
SRSara Rinaldi
Sara Rinaldi
MMMaria Cleofe Merico
Maria Cleofe Merico
Francesco AsdrubaliFrancesco Asdrubali
Francesco Asdrubali
LLLucrezia Lamastra
Lucrezia Lamastra

1 October 2014 in Applied Energy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Franco CotanaFranco Cotana
Franco Cotana
FRFederico Rossi
Federico Rossi
MFMirko Filipponi
Mirko Filipponi
VCValentina Coccia
Valentina Coccia
Anna Laura PiselloAnna Laura Pisello
Anna Laura Pisello
Gianluca CavalaglioGianluca Cavalaglio
Gianluca Cavalaglio

2 July 2016 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SRSara Rinaldi
Sara Rinaldi
Emanuele BonamenteEmanuele Bonamente
Emanuele Bonamente
FSFlavio Scrucca
Flavio Scrucca
MMMaria Cleofe Merico
Maria Cleofe Merico
Francesco AsdrubaliFrancesco Asdrubali
Francesco Asdrubali
Franco CotanaFranco Cotana
Franco Cotana
Life cycle assessments (LCAs) play a strategic role in improving the environmental performance of a company and in supporting a successful marketing communication. The high impact of the food industry on natural resources, in terms of water consumption and greenhouse gases emission, has been focusing the attention of consumers and producers towards environmentally sustainable products. This work presents a comprehensive approach for the joint evaluation of carbon (CF) and water (WF) footprint of the wine industry from a cradle to grave perspective. The LCA analysis is carried out following the requirements of international standards (ISO/TS 14067 and ISO 14046). A complete review of the water footprint methodology is presented and guidelines for all the phases of the evaluation procedure are provided, including acquisition and validation of input data, allocation, application of analytic models, and interpretation of the results. The strength of this approach is the implementation of a side-by-side CF vs. WF assessment, based on the same system boundaries, functional unit, and input data, that allows a reliable comparison between the two indicators. In particular, a revised methodology is presented for the evaluation of the grey water component. The methodology was applied to a white and a red wine produced in the same company. A comparison between the two products is presented for each LCA phase along with literature results for similar wines.

2 September 2015 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Emanuele BonamenteEmanuele Bonamente
Emanuele Bonamente
FSFlavio Scrucca
Flavio Scrucca
Francesco AsdrubaliFrancesco Asdrubali
Francesco Asdrubali
Franco CotanaFranco Cotana
Franco Cotana
ANDREA PRESCIUTTIANDREA PRESCIUTTI
ANDREA PRESCIUTTI
An original methodology for the Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) of a Product for the wine-making industry sector is presented, with a particular focus on the evaluation procedure of the grey water. Results obtained with the proposed methodology are also presented for an Italian case study. The product was analyzed using a life-cycle approach, with the aim of studying the water volumes of each phase according to the newly-released ISO 14046 international standard. The functional unit chosen in this study is the common 0.75 liter wine bottle. An in-house software (V.I.V.A.) was implemented with the goal of accounting for all the contributions in a cradle-to-grave approach. At this stage, however, minor water volumes associated with some foreground and background processes are not assessed. The evaluation procedure was applied to a case study and green, blue, and grey water volumes were computed. Primary data were collected for a red wine produced by an Umbrian wine-making company. Results are in accordance with global average water footprint values from literature, showing a total WF of 632.2 L/bottle, with the major contribution (98.3%) given by green water, and minor contributions (1.2% and 0.5%) given by grey and blue water, respectively. A particular effort was dedicated to the definition of an improved methodology for the assessment of the virtual water volume required to dilute the load of pollutants on the environment below some reference level (Grey WF). The improved methodology was elaborated to assure the completeness of the water footprint assessment and to overcome some limitations of the reference approach. As a result, the overall WF can increase up to 3% in the most conservative hypotheses.

6 November 2015 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Emanuele BonamenteEmanuele Bonamente
Emanuele Bonamente
Franco CotanaFranco Cotana
Franco Cotana
A systematic analysis of green-house gases emission (carbon footprint) and primary energy consumption (energy footprint) of prefabricated industrial buildings during their entire life cycle is presented. The life cycle assessment (LCA) study was performed in a cradle-to grave approach: site-specific data from an Italian company, directly involved in all the phases from raw material manufacturing to in-situ assembly, were used to analyze the impacts as a function of different design choices. Four buildings were analyzed and results were used to setup a parameterized model that was used to study the impacts of industrial prefabricated buildings over the input parameter space. The model vs. data agreement is within 4% for both carbon and energy footprint. The functional unit is 1 m3 of prefabricated building, considering a 50-year lifetime. The results of the four buildings decrease from 144.6 kgCO2eq/m3 and 649.5 kWh/m3 down to 123.5 kgCO2eq/m3 and 556.8 kWh/m3 as the building floor area increases from 1048 m2 to 21,910 m2. The use phase accounts for the major impact (approximate 76%). It is found that the carbon footprint is proportional to the energy footprint, the proportional factor being 0.222 kgCO2eq/kWh within 0.5% accuracy. Finally, a systematic study of the sensitivity of input parameters (insulation, lifetime, foundation type) is presented.

1 February 2016 in Energy and Buildings
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FRFederico Rossi
Federico Rossi
Emanuele BonamenteEmanuele Bonamente
Emanuele Bonamente
Andrea NicoliniAndrea Nicolini
Andrea Nicolini
EAElisabetta Anderini
Elisabetta Anderini
Franco CotanaFranco Cotana
Franco Cotana