Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Carbon footprint model for evaluating the global warming impact

of food transport refrigeration systems
Xiaomin Wu*, Shan Hu, Shaojia Mo
Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Key Laboratory of CO2 Utilization and Reduction Technology,
Department of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 30 October 2012
Received in revised form
7 April 2013
Accepted 22 April 2013
Available online 11 May 2013

This paper presents a model for assessing the carbon footprint of food transport refrigeration systems.
The model considers all the impacts of the refrigerators and refrigerants in each process, including
production, transport, use, repair and recycling, on greenhouse gas emissions expressed as the CO2
equivalent emissions in total. The carbon footprint can be divided into direct emissions which are the
greenhouse effect caused by various greenhouse gas emissions and leakage in each process, and indirect
emissions which are the CO2 equivalent emissions due to the energy consumption in each process. This
model was used to evaluate the carbon footprint of food transport refrigeration systems with three
refrigerants, R404A and the environmentally benign refrigerants R744 (CO2) and R410A for various
ambient temperatures, refrigeration temperatures, lifetimes and refrigerator drive modes. The results
show that the carbon footprint of food transport refrigeration systems with R404A is larger than for R744
and R410A. Although the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of R744 is the lowest, the carbon footprint of
food transport refrigeration systems with R744 is not always the smallest, but may exceed that of R410A
in high temperature areas. The CO2 emissions caused by the energy consumption are a large part of the
total CO2 emissions, with the energy consumption to power the refrigerator and to carry the refrigeration
unit weight resulting in the largest proportions; thus increasing the coefcient of performance (COP) of
the refrigerator and the efciencies of other equipments can signicantly reduce the energy consumption
and CO2 emissions. Higher ambient temperatures and lower refrigeration temperatures lead to more CO2
emissions. Refrigerators driven by auxiliary engines have higher CO2 emissions than refrigeration systems driven by the main vehicle engine or electricity. The carbon footprint evaluation model developed
in this paper can also be used to evaluate the carbon footprint of mobile air conditioning and other
systems.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Global warming
Carbon footprint assessment
Life cycle
Food transport refrigeration
Refrigerants

1. Introduction
Global warming, which is caused by greenhouse gas emissions
and is responsible for extreme weather in recent years, has
attracted increasing attention from both governments and scientists around the world. The Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 2007
pointed out that the average global surface temperature increased
by about 0.74 K in the past 100 years (1906e2005). This is greater
than the 0.6 K in the Third Assessment Report published in 2001.
This will lead to an accelerating rate of sea ice reduction and sea
level rise (IPCC, 2007). For this reason, people are paying greater

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 86 10 6277 0558.

E-mail address: wuxiaomin@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (X.M. Wu).
0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.045

attention to greenhouse gas emission reduction activities. The

Kyoto Protocol expanded the range of greenhouse gases to include
CO2, chlorouorocarbons (CFCs), hydrogen chlorouorocarbons
(HCFCs) and hydrouorocarbons (HFCs), and required that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be controlled at an appropriate level to prevent the harmful effect of climate change on
humans (UNFCCC, 1998).
The CFC and HCFC refrigerants not only cause the greenhouse
effect, but also split and release ozone destructive chlorine atoms,
leading to increased harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the
ground. Thus, a schedule for gradually reducing and eventually
getting rid of the use of CFCs and HCFCs was set down in the
Montreal Protocol. The new alternative refrigerants include natural
refrigerants, such as R744 and NH3, and synthetic types, such as
HFC-134a, R410A and R404A. R744, R410A and R404A are used in
this research. Carbon dioxide, R744, is a natural refrigerant, R410A

116

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

Nomenclature
er1
er2
E
F
Ea
Epower
Ep1
Ep2
Erecycle
Et1
Et2
Eweight
H
lu
lb
L
Li
m1
m2
n

energy consumption for recycling per unit weight of

refrigerator, kWh/kg
energy consumption for recycling per unit weight of
refrigerant, kWh/kg
embodied energy
fugitive emissions
energy consumption per year, kWh/year
energy consumed by the refrigerator in its lifetime,
kWh
energy consumption for the refrigerator production,
kWh
energy consumption for the refrigerant production,
kWh
energy consumed for recycling the refrigerators, kWh
energy consumed for transport of the refrigerator, kWh
energy consumed for transport of the refrigerants,
kWh
energy consumed for carrying the weight of the
refrigeration unit, kWh
heating value of the fuel, kWh/L
annual refrigerant leakage during operation, kg/year
annual refrigerant leakage for repairs, kg/year
refrigerant leakage per year, kg/year
refrigerant leakage during assembly, kg
refrigerator weight, kg
refrigerant weight, kg
lifetime, year

is a mixture of HFC-32 and HFC-125, and R404A is a mixture of HFC125, HFC-143a and HFC-134a. Both R744 and R410A are environmentally benign refrigerants, while R404A is not, since it has a large
Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 3784.
Refrigerants play an important role in food transport refrigeration systems and in other refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. Improving living standards are resulting in more refrigerated
food transport, which means more refrigerants used and more CO2
emitted due to energy consumption. According to incomplete statistics in 2002, there were over 1,000,000 refrigerated food trucks
and over 400,000 refrigerated food containers in the world
(Billiard, 2002). This refrigerated food transport results in large
amounts of CO2 emissions. For example, in the UK, CO2 emissions
due to these processes are more than 18,000 tons a year. This only
accounts for the direct emissions of vehicle engines, with other CO2
emissions, for instance due to operation of the refrigeration
equipment and refrigerant leakage not included (Tassou et al.,
2009). A correct global warming impact evaluation of food transport refrigeration systems is needed to exploring effective ways to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The currently used evaluation indexes for the global warming
impact are mainly the Global Warming Potential (GWP), the Total
Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) and the Life Cycle Climate
Performance (LCCP). GWP is used as a general evaluation index for
global warming impact while TEWI and LCCP are evaluation indexes
specially developed for refrigeration systems. In this research, a
more comprehensive global warming impact evaluation model
based on the carbon footprint concept has been developed to
provide a more complete assessment of the global warming impact
of food transport refrigeration systems. The carbon footprint evaluation model fully considers each refrigerant and refrigeration
process throughout the life cycle including production, transport,
use, repair, and recycling, and all of the inuential factors, such as

Qi
R
S1
S2
v
V

cooling capacity at one temperature, kW

residual amount of refrigerant in retired equipment, kg
refrigerator transport distance, km
refrigerant transport distance, km
vehicle speed, km/h
fuel consumption per unit weight and unit distance,
L/kg km

Greek symbols
refrigerant recycling rate
CO2 emissions per kWh energy generation, kg/kWh
function of distribution
3
refrigeration coefcient of the refrigerator
hbattery battery efciency
hgenerator generator efciency
hk
engine efciency at one speed
hmotor
motor efciency
hpp
power plant efciency
hsub-engine auxiliary engine efciency
s0
refrigerator annual working time, h/year

a
b
g

Subscripts
1
refrigerator
2
refrigerant
v
vehicle speed
t
ambient temperature
i, j, k
tensor indexes
e
electricity
f
fuel

the local ambient temperature, refrigerant, refrigeration temperature, vehicle speed, and refrigerator drive mode. The model is used
to evaluate the carbon footprint for food transport refrigeration
systems using three refrigerants, R404A and the environmentally
benign refrigerants R744 and R410A in different climates in
different countries, for different lifetimes, different refrigeration
temperatures and different drive modes.
2. Overview of evaluation indexes for the global warming
impact
The commonly used evaluation indexes for the global warming
impact include the GWP, TEWI and LCCP. GWP provides a basis for
comparing the global warming impact of greenhouse gases while
TEWI and LCCP are indexes used to evaluate the global warming
impact of refrigeration systems. As carbon emissions have
increased and the environmental effects have become more severe
in recent years, a new concept, the carbon footprint, has been
proposed (Rees, 1992).
2.1. GWP
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is used to measure the
greenhouse gas effect of a gas based on its radiative properties
relative to CO2 over a given time frame. The GWP of CO2 is 1. A gas
with a higher GWP indicates that it has more impact on the environment. The GWP depends on the: (1) infrared radiation absorptivity of the gas, (2) the gas lifetime in the atmosphere, and (3) the
selected time frame (WMO, 1999). Thus, the same gas can have
different GWP for different time frames with 100 years normally
used as the standard time frame. The GWP, then, just reects the
impact of the gas properties on the global warming.

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

2.2. TEWI
When using refrigerants, the greenhouse impact is not only
caused by refrigerant leakage into the atmosphere, but also by the
energy consumption of the refrigeration system. The Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) which includes direct emissions
caused by the leakage of greenhouse gases and indirect emissions
caused by the energy consumption of the refrigeration system was
then developed. The direct emissions depend on the GWP of the
refrigerant, the amount of refrigerant leakage, the equipment
running time, etc. While the indirect emissions depend on the
energy consumption during operation and the CO2 emissions per
unit energy generation, that is (Orfeo, 1996):

TEWI Direct emissions Indirect emissions

(1)

Direct emissions L  n  GWP R  1  a  GWP

(2)

Indirect emissions n  Ea  b

(3)

where L is the refrigerant leakage per year, kg/year; n is the

equipment run time, which is the same as the lifetime, year; R is the
residual amount of refrigerant in retired equipment, kg; a is the
refrigerant recovery rate; Ea is the energy consumption per year,
kWh/year; and b is the amount of CO2 emissions for 1 kWh energy
generation, kg/kWh. As shown in Eqs. (1)e(3), the TEWI will differ
for different lifetimes.
2.3. LCCP
The concept of Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP), rst
introduced by the U.S. Company Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1999), is
based on the TEWI with some further considerations taken into
account:
 The warming impact associated with the energy consumed
(electric energy and various fuels burned on site) to manufacture both the uorocarbon and the raw materials used to make
the uorocarbon (the so-called embodied energy or
embedded energy e E).
 The direct warming impact of any byproduct greenhouse gases
that are emitted by the manufacturing process (the so-called
fugitive emissions e F).
LCCP is then dened as:

LCCP L  n R  1  a  GWP E F n  Ea  b

117

Table 1
LCCP of residential air conditioning in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. (Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1999).
SEER

Refrigerant

Indirect
emissionsa
(CO2 eq.) kg

Direct emissions
(CO2 eq.) kg

LCCP (CO2 eq.) kg

2.9
3.5

HCFC-22
HCFC-22
R407C
R410A
R290
HCFC-22
R407C
R410A

32,955
27,466
27,466
27,466
27,466
23,357
23,357
23,357

3969
2381
1940
1802
6
2381
1940
1802

36,924
29,847
29,406
29,268
27,472
25,738
25,297
25,159

4.1

At U.S. average electrical generation rates of 0.65 kg CO2/kWh.

lower than with HFC-134a, which means that mobile airconditioning systems with R744 signicantly reduce CO2 emissions.
A LCCP assessment model given by Papasavva et al. (2010)
assessed the direct and indirect CO2 equivalent emissions related
to mobile air-conditioning system usage as well as those associated
with the production, use and repair of alternative refrigerants and
mobile air-conditioning system components. This model was then
used to evaluate the change in the LCCP of all mobile air-conditioning systems worldwide with HFC-134a, HFO1234yf and R744
assuming the hypothetical scenario that the entire global eet
registered in 2017 was equipped with new alternative refrigerant
mobile air-conditioning systems, to evaluate the potential global
benets of the best alternative option. The results indicated that
HFO1234yf led to the lowest overall global LCCP.
Although there are some estimates of LCCP for house and mobile air-conditioning systems, these studies are still inadequate
because they simply adopted estimated effect factors E and F from
other articles without comprehensive consideration of all the
processes while other models lacked detailed descriptions in the
models.
2.4. Carbon footprint
The carbon footprint concept is becoming more popular in
recent years. The carbon footprint describes the CO2 emissions of
a given product or process for its whole life, but has several denitions. Wiedmann and Minx (2007) dened the carbon footprint
as a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions
directly and indirectly caused by an activity or that accumulate over
a product lifetime and presented carbon footprint analysis for two

(4)

The estimated values of E and F for some common refrigerants

can be found in the literatures (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1999; Campbell
and McCulloch, 1998).
Arthur D. Little then compared the LCCP of mobile air-conditioning units, unitary air-conditioning units, chillers and commercial refrigeration units using the refrigerants HCFC-22, R410A,
R407C and R290. Table 1 shows the LCCP of residential air-conditioning systems in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. for several Seasonal Energy
Efciency Ratios (SEER).
The LCCP of mobile air-conditioning systems using HFC-134a
and R744 in different countries are compared in Fig. 1 (Hafner
et al., 2004). The Indirect was the effect caused by the airconditioning energy consumption, the Mass was the effect
caused by the vehicle energy consumption when carrying the
cargo, and the Direct was the effect caused by leakage of refrigerant during production and recycling. The results show that
the LCCP of mobile air-conditioning systems with R744 are 20e50%

Fig. 1. LCCP of mobile air-conditioning systems with HFC-134a and R744 (Hafner et al.,
2004).

118

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

practical examples, UK Schools Carbon Footprint Scoping Study

and Carbon Footprint of UK Households. Carbon Trust (2007)
dened the carbon footprint as a methodology to estimate the total emissions of greenhouse gases in carbon equivalents from a
product across its life cycle from the production of the raw material
used in its manufacture, to disposal of the nished product
(excluding in-use emissions), or a technique to identify and measure the individual greenhouse gas emissions from each activity
within a supply chain through a framework that attributes these to
each output product. They used cocoa beans, sugar and milk as
examples to illustrate the raw material processing. The current
study denes the carbon footprint as the total direct and indirect
CO2 emissions plus the equivalent CO2 emissions of other greenhouse gases of a given product, process or activity over its entire
lifetime.
The carbon footprint concept is well known but there are few
good carbon footprint evaluation models that consider all the effects in all the processes through the entire product life cycle which
differ for each product. In particularly there are few models for
assessing the carbon footprint of food transport refrigeration
systems.
This paper presents a comprehensive carbon footprint evaluation model with food transport refrigeration systems as an example
including all the key factors over the entire lifetime. The model is
used to investigate the carbon footprint of food transport refrigeration systems using three refrigerants, R404A and the environmentally benign refrigerants R744 and R410A.
3. Carbon footprint evaluation for food transport
refrigeration systems
3.1. Carbon footprint estimation model
The evaluation of the carbon footprint for food transport
refrigeration systems considers the impacts of all the refrigerators
and refrigerants over their entire lifetime, including during production, transport, use, repair, and recycling on the global climate
change. The carbon footprint of food transport refrigeration systems can be divided into the direct emissions and indirect emissions as shown in Fig. 2. The direct emissions are the greenhouse
effect caused by the leakage of the various greenhouse gases in

each process, including the emissions of byproducts with greenhouse impact in the production of the refrigerants and refrigerators, the leakage of the refrigerants during assembly and
transport, and the leakage of the refrigerants during use, repair and
recycling. The indirect emissions are the CO2 equivalent emissions
due to the energy consumption in each process including production, transport, use and recycling of the refrigerants and
refrigerators.
The carbon footprint (kg CO2-equiv.) can be calculated as:

Carbon footprint Direct emissons Indirect emissions

(5)

Direct emissions Li lu lb  n R  1  a  GWP

(6)

Indirect emissions


Epower Eweight Et1 Et2  bf

Ep1 bp1 Ep2 bp2 Erecycle brecycle

(7)

where Li is the refrigerant leakage during assembly, kg; lu is the

annual refrigerant leakage during operation, kg/year; lb is the
annual refrigerant leakage for repairs, kg/year; n is the operating
time, which is also called the lifetime, year; R is residual amount
of refrigerant in the equipment before recycling, kg; a is the
refrigerant recycling rate; Epower is the energy consumed by the
refrigerator in its lifetime, kWh; Eweight is the energy consumed
for carrying the weight of the refrigeration unit on the truck over
its lifetime, kWh; Et1 is the energy consumed for transport of the
refrigerator before installation, kWh; Et2 is the energy consumed
for transport of the refrigerant before installation, kWh; Ep1 is
the energy consumption for refrigerator production, kWh; Ep2 is
the energy consumption for refrigerant production, kWh; Erecycle
is the energy consumed for recycling the refrigerators, kWh; and
all the b are the CO2 emissions factors dened as the CO2
emissions per kWh energy generation with bf being that for the
vehicle fuel and bp1, bp2, and brecycle being those associated
with the energy usage terms Ep1, Ep2 and Erecycle, respectively.
Note that a detailed description of all the b will be given in
Section 3.2.

Fig. 2. Carbon footprint emissions for food transport refrigeration systems.

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

Epower in Eq. (7) can be calculated in different ways depending

on the refrigerator driving mode.
 Refrigerators driven by the main engine
Some vehicles have only one engine which provides energy for
both the vehicle and the cooling. The refrigeration energy is then,

P gti Qi 1
X
B
3 C
gvk i ik C
s n
B
@
h A 0
0

Epower

(8a)

 Refrigerators driven by an auxiliary engine

Some vehicles have two engines with the main engine driving
the vehicle and the auxiliary engine driving the cooling. The
refrigeration energy becomes,

0
Epower @

gti Qi

hsubengine  3

119

Table 2
GWP of R744, R410A and R404A (100 years) (Furuhama, 2004).
Refrigerant

R744

R410A

R404A

GWP

1975

3784

Here, vk is the vehicle speed, km/h; m1 is the refrigerator weight,

kg; m2 is the refrigerant weight, kg; V is the fuel consumption per
unit weight and unit distance, L/kg km; H is the heating value of the
fuel, kWh/L; S1 is the refrigerator transport distance before installation, km; S2 is the refrigerant transport distance before installation, km; er1 is the energy consumption for recycling per unit
weight of refrigerator, kWh/kg; and er2 is the energy consumption
for recycling per unit weight of the refrigerant, kWh/kg. Subscripts
1 and 2 represent the refrigerator and the refrigerant,
respectively.
3.2. Model parameters

1
A  s0  n

(8b)

The above model was used to evaluate the carbon footprints of

food transport refrigeration systems. The calculations used twelve
typical refrigerated vehicles from three companies including

 Refrigerators driven by electricity

Some vehicles use electricity generated by the main engine or
supplied from a power station to power the refrigerators. The
refrigeration energy is given by,

0
Epower

BX
gvk
B
@
k

P
i

gti Qi

hmotori  3ik

hpp  hbattery  gj hk  hgenerator  1  gj

C
C
A

 s0  n
(8c)
In Eqs. (8a)e(8c), gvk is the vehicle speed distribution which is the
proportion of time a vehicle is driven at a given speed over a year and
hk is the engine efciency at this speed; gti describes the ambient
temperature distribution which is the proportion of time at a given
environmental temperature in a year and Qi is the cooling capacity at
this temperature, kW; 3 is the refrigeration coefcient of the refrigerator, which is equal to the coefcient of performance (COP) of the
refrigerator; s0 is the refrigerator annual working time, h/year; hsubengine is the auxiliary engine efciency; hmotori is the motor efciency; hpp is the power plant efciency; hbattery is the battery efciency; gj is the proportion in energy supplied to the refrigerators by
power plants; and hgenerator is the generator efciency.
In Eq. (7), the other energy consumption terms are calculated as:

Eweight

gvk

Et1

Et2

gvk1

nk
 m1 m2  V  H  s0  n
hk

k1

hk1

k2

gvk2

hk2

(9)

!
 m1  S1  V1  H1

(10)

 m2  S2  V2  H2

(11)

Erecycle m1 er1 m2 er2

(12)

Fig. 3. Ambient temperature distribution, gti, in different cities: (a) Beijing and Berlin;
(b) Shanghai, Madrid, Tokyo, Osaka.

120

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

Fig. 4. Comparison of the LCCP and carbon footprints for three refrigerants (n 10
years, tR 0  C, Tokyo).

Carrier, Thermo King and MHI, with four vehicles from each company with different cooling capacities, with three refrigerants,
R404A and the environmentally benign refrigerants R744 and
R410A, two refrigeration temperatures of 0  C and 18  C, three
lifetimes of 2 years, 5 years and 10 years, as well as climates and CO2
emissions factors in six cities including Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing,
Shanghai, Berlin and Madrid.
The data used in the calculations is described as follows.
GWP. Table 2 shows the GWPs of R744, R404A and R410A based
on a time frame of 100 years (Furuhama, 2004).
Ambient temperature. Fig. 3 shows the temperature distributions in the six cities, with part of the data from the weather
database software Metronorm.
CO2 emissions factors. The CO2 emissions factor depends on the
energy type and generation method. The CO2 emissions factor for
the fuel, bf, was set to be 0.249 kg CO2/kWh based on the IPCC
report (IPCC, 2006), with the assumption that the gasoline was a
general vehicle fuel. The energy sources used for the refrigerator
production, Ep1, refrigerant production, Ep2, and refrigerator recycling, Erecycle, are all assumed to be the countrys electrical supply.
Thus, thebp1, bp2, and brecycle are assumed to be equal to the CO2
emissions factors for each countrys electrical supply, be, which
depend on the national energy generation matrix including electricity generated from fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro (excluding pumped storage), geothermal, solar and biofuels. Therefore, be will
differ for each country and can vary from year to year. According to

the IEA report (IEA, 2012), for the year 2010, the be for China,
Germany, Japan and Spain were 0.766, 0.461, 0.416 and
0.238 kg CO2/kWh, respectively.
To better reect the inuence of the national energy generation
matrix on the CO2 emissions, the production and recycling of the
refrigerator and refrigerant were all assumed to be performed in
the same country as the investigated city. Thus, for each city, bp1,
bp2, and brecycle are all the same and equal to the CO2 emissions
factors of that countrys electrical supply.
Energy consumption for production and recycling. The energy consumption for manufacturing the refrigerant is related to
the production GWPs with R744, R404A and R410A having production GWPs of 0, 30, and 24, respectively (Furuhama, 2004). The
energy for manufacturing each kilogram of refrigerator was
assumed to be 5940 kg CO2/kg (Hiroaki et al., 2009). The energy for
recycling each kilogram of refrigerant and refrigerator were set to
4340 and 2690 kg CO2/kg, respectively (Kosuke et al., 2009).
Engine efciency and vehicle speed variation. Vehicle speed
commonly varies from 0 to 120 km/h. This variation was represented by three speed stages, 10, 40, and 100 km/h to represent the
speed ranges of 0e20, 21e70, and 71e120 km/h. The corresponding
gvk was determined from some survey data provided by the
manufacturer. For example, over a year, 46.8% of the time a vehicle is
driven at speeds of 0e20 km/h, so gvk is set to 46.8% for the speed of
10 km/h. gvk for 40 and 100 km/h can also be determined in a similar
way. The vehicle engine efciency and the auxiliary engine efciency also vary with the vehicle speed as well as the vehicle type.
Inherent refrigerators data. The refrigerator weight, refrigerant weight, and fuel consumption were obtained from the
refrigerator manufacturer websites (Carrier, 2012; MHI, 2012;
Thermo King, 2012). For example, for the Carrier Xarios 600, the
refrigerator weighs 189 kg, the refrigerant weighs 3.6 kg, and the
fuel consumption per unit weight per unit distance is 3.6  106 L/
kg km. The cooling capacities of the refrigerators at different
ambient temperatures were also obtained from the manufacturer
websites (Carrier, 2012; MHI, 2012; Thermo King, 2012). The COP of
the refrigerators was obtained in different ways, with some obtained from experimental data provided by the manufacturer and
others calculated according to their evaporation temperature,
condensation temperature and refrigerant using thermodynamic
theory.
Refrigerant leakage. Experimental data provided by the
manufacturer was used to set the refrigerant leakage at 2% of the

Fig. 5. Carbon footprints in six cities (n 10 years, tR 0  C, R404A).

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

121

Fig. 6. COP variation with ambient temperature at different vehicle speeds (Xarios 600,
tR 0  C, R404A).

Fig. 8. COP variation with ambient temperature using R410A and R744 (Xarios 600,
tR 0  C, v 40 km/h).

refrigerant weight for the installation process, 0.02 kg/year for the
annual leakage during operation, and 0.1% of the refrigerant weight
for the annual leakage during repairing, while the refrigerant
recycling rate was taken to be 90%.
Transport distance before installation. The refrigerator
transport distance before installation was assumed to be 300 km as
an average distance between major cities, while the refrigerant
transport distance before installation was assumed to be 150 km,
based on average distance between adjacent cities.
Refrigerator working time. The refrigerator annual working
time was assumed to be 2000 h/year.
Others. The power plant efciency was assumed to be 37.4%, the
battery efciency was 95% and the generator efciency was 85%,
respectively, while the motor efciency varies with the ambient
temperature. The proportion of the energy supplied to the refrigerators by the power plant was assumed to be 50%.

temperature for a 10 year lifetime in Tokyo. The result shows that

the CO2 emissions given by LCCP are about 40% less than those
given by the carbon footprint model for all the refrigerants. The
reason is that the LCCP does not account for CO2 emissions from the
refrigerant transport, refrigerator production, transport, weight
and recycling, leading to an underestimation of the CO2 emissions.

3.3. Results and discussion

3.3.1. Comparison with LCCP
Fig. 4 compares the present results with those obtained
using the LCCP index for the Carrier Xarios 600 with the three
refrigerants, R744, R404A and R410A, at a 0  C refrigeration

3.3.2. Ambient temperature and electricity generation matrix

effects
The carbon footprints of food transport refrigeration systems
were evaluated for twelve different vehicle types in the different
climates of Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing, Shanghai, Berlin and Madrid. The
refrigeration systems used R404A as the refrigerant with a 0  C
refrigeration temperature for 10 year lifetimes. The results for the
Carrier Xarios 600 are shown in Fig. 5, as an example. The Indirect
is the effect caused by energy consumption over the entire lifetime,
and the Direct is the effect caused by various greenhouse gas
emissions and refrigerant leakage.
The results in Fig. 5 show that the direct emissions are less than
the indirect emissions and that the indirect emissions due to the
energy consumption to power the refrigerator and carry the
refrigeration unit weight are the largest. For example in Shanghai,
these two items account for 46% and 22% of the total, respectively.

Fig. 7. Carbon footprints for three refrigerants in Shanghai and Berlin (n 10 years, tR 0  C, v 40 km/h).

122

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

Fig. 9. Carbon footprints at two refrigeration temperatures (Xarios 600, n 10 years, R410A).

As shown in Eqs. (8a)e(8c), the energy consumption to drive the

refrigerator varies inversely with the refrigeration coefcient, the
COP, and the efciency of each part, such as the engine. Thus,
increasing the refrigerator COP and the equipment efciencies
will effectively reduce the energy consumption and the carbon
emissions.
Comparing the results for different cities shows that the carbon
footprint increases from Berlin to Madrid, Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing and
Shanghai as shown in Fig. 5. So, refrigerated vehicles traveling in
Berlin have the lowest CO2 emissions, while those in Shanghai have
the highest. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the largest difference among
the CO2 emissions for the six cities are the emissions due to the
energy consumption to power the refrigerator with this refrigerator
power effect being the lowest in Berlin, but the highest in Shanghai.
This is because of the relatively lower ambient temperatures in
Berlin, as shown in Fig. 3, that lead to a larger refrigerator COP
which reduces the energy consumption for power. In Shanghai,
higher ambient temperatures lead to a smaller COP, so the refrigerator power effect is much stronger than for other cities, as shown
in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows that the COP of the Xarios 600 refrigerator
with R404A at 0  C refrigeration temperature, tR, varies inversely
with ambient temperature at vehicle speeds of 10, 40, and 100 km/
h.
Fig. 5 also shows that the CO2 emissions due to the energy
consumption for production, transport and recycling differ from
country to country with Spain having the smallest and China having the largest because the energy used for these processes comes
from the countrys electrical supply and the associated CO2 emissions factors are 0.766, 0.461, 0.416 and 0.238 kg CO2/kWh for
China, Germany, Japan and Spain, respectively.
3.3.3. Refrigerant effect
The carbon footprints of the food transport refrigeration systems were evaluated for twelve different vehicle types with three
refrigerants of R744, R404A and R410A. The refrigeration systems
had a 0  C refrigeration temperature with a 10 year lifetime for
conditions in Shanghai and Berlin. The results with the Carrier
Xarios 600 system as an example are shown in Fig. 7.
The results show that the carbon footprint of the food transport
refrigeration system is largest with R404A. The reason for this is
mainly due to the GWP difference. As shown in Table 2, the GWP of
R404A is 3784, while the GWPs of R410A and R744 are 1975 and 1;
thus, the R404A GWP is twice that of the R410A and 3784 times that

of the R744. This much larger GWP leads to much larger direct
emissions for R404A. The direct emissions of R744 are negligible in
the gure.
Although the GWP of R744 is very small and the direct CO2
emissions with R744 are negligible in Fig. 7, the carbon footprint
with R744 is not always the smallest. As can be seen in Fig. 7, in
Berlin the carbon footprint using R744 is the smallest, but in
Shanghai, where the temperature is higher than in Berlin, the carbon footprint with R744 is larger than that with R410A because the
refrigerator power effect dominates as the ambient temperature
increases. In Eq. (8), the refrigerator power effect varies inversely
with the refrigeration coefcient, 3, which decreases with
increasing ambient temperature. Fig. 8 shows the variation of the
Xarios 600 COP with the ambient temperature for R410A and R744
at tR 0  C and a vehicle speed of 40 km/h. The COP both decreases
with increasing ambient temperature with the COP for R744
smaller than for R410A; thus, the limitations of R744 COP become
more obvious as the ambient temperature increases. For example,
as the ambient temperature increased from 0 Cto 35  C, the COP
ratio of R744 to R410A decreased from 88% to 75%. Therefore, in
Shanghai with higher temperatures, the carbon footprint using

Fig. 10. COP variation with ambient temperature at two refrigeration temperatures
(Xarios 600, R410A, v 40 km/h).

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

Fig. 11. Carbon footprints for different refrigerator drive modes (n 10 years, tR 0  C,
R404A, Tokyo).

R744 is greater than that using R410A. Thus, R410A is the best
refrigerant for high temperature environments while R744 is the
best for low temperature environments in terms of the carbon
footprint.
3.3.4. Refrigeration temperature effect
The carbon footprints of food transport refrigeration systems
were further estimated for the twelve different vehicle types with
refrigeration temperatures of 0  C and 18  C. The calculation used
R410A with a 10 year lifetime in Tokyo, Beijing and Berlin. The results for the Carrier Xarios 600 system are shown in Fig. 9, as an
example.
The carbon footprint for tR 18  C is much larger than that for
tR 0  C because for the same ambient temperature, a lower
refrigeration temperature leads to a smaller COP, resulting in more
energy consumption for the same cooling capacity. The variation of
the Xarios 600 COP with ambient temperature is shown in Fig. 10
for refrigerant temperatures of 0  C and 18  C which shows that
for the same ambient temperature, the COP is much smaller for
tR 18  C than for tR 0  C.
3.3.5. Refrigerator drive mode effect
The carbon footprints of food transport refrigeration systems
were eventually evaluated for three different refrigerator drive
modes. The calculation used R404A at a 0  C refrigeration temperature for a 10 year lifetime. The results are shown in Fig. 11.

123

The carbon footprint of the food transport refrigeration systems

with refrigerators driven by an auxiliary engine are much larger
than when driven by the main truck engine or by electricity
because the auxiliary engine adds additional equipment and
weight for the refrigerator, which greatly increased the CO2
equivalent emissions due to the energy consumption for production and transport of the refrigerator and for the refrigeration unit
transport.
Fig. 12 shows the carbon footprint evaluation results for refrigerators driven by the main engine and by an auxiliary engine for
different refrigeration temperatures, tR, with different lifetimes, n.
For tR 0  C and n 5 years, the carbon footprint using the main
engine is about 55% that using the auxiliary engine with this proportion increasing to about 60% at tR 0  C and n 10 years and
73% at tR 18  C and n 10 years. From Eqs. (8) and (9), both the
refrigerator power, Epower, and the energy consumed for carrying
the refrigeration unit weight, Eweight, increase with the lifetime, n.
Fig. 12(a) and (b) show that as the lifetime increases, the refrigerator power effect accounts for a larger proportion when using the
main engine, while when using the auxiliary engine, the refrigeration unit weight effect creates more CO2. The refrigeration temperature only affects the refrigerator power effect, so a lower
refrigeration temperature increases the refrigerator energy consumption for the same cooling capacity. Comparison of Fig. 12(b)
and (c) shows that as the refrigeration temperature decreases, the
carbon footprints increase for both the main engine and the
auxiliary engine, with the difference between the two carbon
footprints becoming smaller because the main engine has a much
larger increase in the refrigerator power at lower temperatures.
As can be seen in Figs. 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12, the CO2 emissions due to
the energy consumption by various processes are much larger than
that due to greenhouse gas leakage, especially the emissions due to
the energy consumption to power the refrigerator and carry the
refrigeration unit weight, account for 65e86% of the total, which is
the largest part of the CO2 emissions for all the cases with a 10 year
lifetime.
4. Conclusions
The carbon footprint concept was used to evaluate the total
lifetime CO2 emissions using a model developed especially but not
limited to food transport refrigeration system. This model includes
the impacts of various types of refrigerators and refrigerants in each
process, including production, transport, use, repair and recycling
on the CO2 emissions. The carbon footprint can be divided into the
direct emissions which are the greenhouse effect caused by the

Fig. 12. Carbon footprints of refrigerators using the main engine or the auxiliary engine for different lifetimes and refrigeration temperatures (R404A, Tokyo): (a) 5 years tR 0  C;
(b) 10 years tR 0  C; (c) 10 years tR 18  C.

124

X.M. Wu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 115e124

various greenhouse gas emissions and leakage in each process and

the indirect emissions which are the CO2 equivalent emissions due
to energy consumption in each process. The carbon footprints for
the food transport refrigeration systems were evaluated for three
refrigerants, R404A and the environmentally benign refrigerants
R744 and R410A. The model is used to analyze the inuences of
ambient temperature, refrigerant, refrigeration temperature, lifetime and refrigerator drive mode on the carbon footprint. The main
results are as follows:
Among the three refrigerants, R744, R410A and R404A, the carbon
footprint of the food transport refrigeration systems is largest with
R404A because the GWP of R404A is almost twice that of R410A and
3784 times that of R744. Although the GWP of R744 is the smallest
and the direct CO2 emissions of the food transport refrigeration
system with R744 are negligible, the carbon footprints of the food
transport refrigeration systems with R744 are not always the smallest
and will exceed those using R410A in high ambient temperature
areas because as the ambient temperature increases the R744 COP
becomes very low which increases the system energy consumption
and CO2 emissions. Therefore, R410A is the best refrigerant for high
temperature environments while R744 is the best for low temperature environments in terms of the carbon footprint.
The CO2 emissions due to the energy consumption by various
processes are much larger than that due to greenhouse gas leakage,
especially the emissions due to the energy consumption to power
the refrigerator and carry the refrigeration unit weight, account for
65e86% of the total, which is the largest part of the CO2 emissions
for all the cases with a 10 year lifetime. Thus, efforts should be paid
to increase the efciencies of the refrigerator and other energy
consuming equipments in a more effective way to save energy and
reduce CO2 emissions.
Comparison of the CO2 emissions in Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing,
Shanghai and Berlin showed that the carbon footprints of the food
transport refrigeration systems are lowest in Berlin and highest in
Shanghai. The most important difference among the CO2 emissions
for the six cities are the emissions due to the energy consumption
to power the refrigerator with this refrigerator power effect being
lowest in Berlin because the lower ambient temperature leads to a
larger refrigerator COP with less energy consumption for the same
cooling capacity. The CO2 emissions are also inuenced by the CO2
emissions factors for the countrys electrical supply, since the
countrys electricity was used for production, transport and recycling, with lower CO2 emissions factors leading to lower CO2
emissions. Lower refrigeration temperatures result in larger carbon
footprints because lower refrigeration temperatures give a smaller
COP with larger energy consumption.
The carbon footprint for refrigeration systems driven by auxiliary engines is much larger than when using the main engine or
electricity to drive the refrigeration systems because the auxiliary
engine adds additional weight which increases the CO2 emissions.
The carbon footprint assessment model presented in this paper
is not only useful for the food transport refrigeration systems, but
can also be used to assess the carbon footprint of mobile and other
types of air-conditioning systems.

Acknowledgment
The work presented in this paper was supported by the National
973 Plan (No. 2010CB227305) and the International Science &
Technology Cooperation Program of China (No. 2012DFG61510).
References
Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1999. Global Comparative Analysis of HFC and Alternative
Technologies for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol Propellant, and Fire Protection Applications: Final Report.
Billiard, F., 2002. Refrigerated transport: whats new. International Journal of
Refrigeration 25, 501e503.
Campbell, N.J., McCulloch, A., 1998. The climate change implications of
manufacturing refrigerants: a calculation of production energy contents of
some common refrigerants. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 76,
239e244.
Carbon Trust, 2007. Carbon Footprint Measurement Methodology. Version 1, p. 27.
London, UK.
Carrier, 2012. Products website. Available at: http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/cn/
(accessed July 2012.).
Furuhama, K., 2004. LCCP evaluation on typical HVAC equipment in Japan. In:
Presented at the International Symposium on New Refrigerants and Environmental Technology, Japan.
Hafner, A., Jakobsen, A., Neksa, P., Pettersen, J., 2004. Life cycle climate performance
(LCCP) of mobile air-conditioning systems with HFC-134a and R-744. In: Presented at the VDA Alternate Refrigerant Wintermeeting. Saalfelden, Austria.
Hiroaki, N., Toshiharu, I., Hiroki, H., Ken, O., 2009. An LCA database of building based
on the 2000 inputeoutput table reecting actual overseas activities. In: Presented at the 4th Meeting of the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan, pp.
120e123.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2012. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion e
highlights. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,
32870,en.html (accessed February 2013.).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006. Mobile combustion
(Chapter 3). Energy. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, vol. 2, p. 50. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.
html (accessed February 2013.).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report, the Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
(accessed June 2012.).
Kosuke, S., Norio, B., Norihiro, I., 2009. LCA comparison of refrigerant reclamation
and destruction in RRC. In: Presented at the 4th Meeting of the Institute of Life
Cycle Assessment, Japan, pp. 30e31.
MHI, 2012. Products website. Available at: http://truck.mhi.co.jp (accessed July
2012.).
Orfeo, S.R., 1996. A history of the TEWI process. In: Presented at the Proceedings of
International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies. Washington DC,
USA.
Papasavva, S., Hill, W.R., Andersen, S.O., 2010. GREEN-MAC-LCCP: a tool for
assessing the life cycle climate performance of MAC systems. Environmental
Science and Technology 44, 7666e7672.
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what
urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4, 121e130.
Tassou, S.A., De-Lille, G., Ge, Y.T., 2009. Food transport refrigeration e approaches to
reduce energy consumption and environmental impacts of road transport.
Applied Thermal Engineering 29, 1467e1477.
Thermo King, 2012. Products website. Available at: http://www.thermoking.com/
index.aspx (accessed July 2012.).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1998. Kyoto
protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php
(accessed June 2012.).
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2007. A denition of carbon footprint. Ecological Economics Research Trends 2, 55e65.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 1999. Scientic assessment of stratospheric ozone. Report no 44. In: Presented at the WMO Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project.