Giovanna Croxatto Vega

Dr. Giovanna Croxatto Vega

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 July 2011 in Atmospheric Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GVGuillermo Villena
Guillermo Villena
JKJörg Kleffmann
Jörg Kleffmann
RKRalf Kurtenbach
Ralf Kurtenbach
PWPeter Wiesen
Peter Wiesen
ELEduardo Lissi
Eduardo Lissi
BRBernhard Rappenglück
Bernhard Rappenglück

1 September 2018 in Science of The Total Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ACAndrea Corona
Andrea Corona
MAMorten Ambye-Jensen
Morten Ambye-Jensen
GVGiovanna Croxatto Vega
Giovanna Croxatto Vega
MHMichael Zwicky Hauschild
Michael Zwicky Hauschild
MBMorten Birkved Birkved
Morten Birkved Birkved

1 November 2014 in Bioresource Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GVGiovanna Croxatto Vega
Giovanna Croxatto Vega
MHMarieke Ten Hoeve
Marieke Ten Hoeve
MBMorten Birkved Birkved
Morten Birkved Birkved
SSSven Gjedde Sommer
Sven Gjedde Sommer
SBSander Bruun
Sander Bruun

13 July 2019 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GVGiovanna Croxatto Vega
Giovanna Croxatto Vega
JSJoshua Sohn
Joshua Sohn
SBSander Bruun
Sander Bruun
SOStig Olsen
Stig Olsen
MBMorten Birkved Birkved
Morten Birkved Birkved
In order to compare the maximum potential environmental impact savings that may result from the implementation of innovative biorefinery alternatives at a regional scale, the Territorial Metabolism-Life Cycle Assessment (TM-LCA) framework is implemented. With the goal of examining environmental impacts arising from technology-to-region (territory) compatibility, the framework is applied to two biorefinery alternatives, treating a mixture of cow manure and grape marc. The biorefineries produce either biogas alone or biogas and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), a naturally occurring polymer. The production of PHA substitutes either polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or biosourced polylactide (PLA) production. The assessment is performed for two regions, one in Southern France and the other in Oregon, USA. Changing energy systems are taken into account via multiple dynamic energy provision scenarios. Territorial scale impacts are quantified using both LCA midpoint impact categories and single score indicators derived through multi-criteria decision assessment (MCDA). It is determined that in all probable future scenarios, a biorefinery with PHA-biogas co-production is preferable to a biorefinery only producing biogas. The TM-LCA framework facilitates the capture of technology and regionally specific impacts, such as impacts caused by local energy provision and potential impacts due to limitations in the availability of the defined feedstock leading to additional transport.

2 May 2020 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GVGiovanna Croxatto Vega
Giovanna Croxatto Vega
JVJuliën Voogt
Juliën Voogt
JSJoshua Sohn
Joshua Sohn
MBMorten Birkved Birkved
Morten Birkved Birkved
SOStig Olsen
Stig Olsen
An efficient use of biomass resources is a key element of the bioeconomy. Ideally, options leading to the highest environmental and economic gains can be singled out for any given region. In this study, to achieve this goal of singling out an ideal technology for a given region, biotechnologies are assessed by a combination of techno-economic assessment (TEA) and territorial metabolism life cycle assessment (TM-LCA). Three technology variations for anaerobic digestion (AD) were assessed at two different scales (200 kW and 1 MW) and for two different regions. First, sustainable feedstock availability for two European regions was quantified. Then, the environmental impact and economic potential of each technology when scaled up to the regional level, considering all of the region’s unique sustainably available feedstock, was investigated. Multiple criteria decision analysis and internalized damage monetization were used to generate single scores for the assessments. Preference for the technology scenario producing the most energy was shown for all regions and scales, while producing bioplastic was less preferable since the value of the produced bioplastic plastic was not great enough to offset the resultant reduction in energy production. Assessing alternatives in a regional context provided valuable information about the influence of different types of feedstock on environmental performance.