Solar drying has emerged as a viable alternative drying method to fossil fuel–based methods, extending the shelf life of agricultural products, reducing post-harvest loss, ensuring food security, improving the livelihood of the people, and minimizing environmental impacts. While the thermal efficiency of solar dryers has been studied by many researchers, their environmental sustainability remains mostly understudied. This study attempted to fill this gap by comparing an indirect metallic structured solar dryer (ISDM) and a wooden structured dryer (ISDW), both equipped with thermal energy storage (TES) materials. The study employed the cradle-to-grave method of life cycle assessment, whereby the midpoint and endpoint characterization values were calculated using the ReCiPe 2016 (H) model. Primary data for the assessment of the dryers was collected from the owners and manufacturers of the two types of solar dryers, supplemented by some secondary data from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle of ISDM shows endpoint single-score impact values of 2.15, 19.6, and 414.26 pt on resources, ecosystem, and human health, respectively. ISDW shows endpoint single-score impact values of 1.99, 17.49 and 289.32, respectively, for the same factors. These findings suggest that ISDW has a lower environmental impact than ISDM; hence, it is recommended for small-scale farmers in developing countries like Tanzania. The findings further demonstrate that not all solar dryers have equal sustainability benefits and that not all solar drying technologies have the same environmental impact. This calls for further investigation into proper material selection and end-of-life management strategies in order to reduce environmental impacts. Policymakers should prioritize the development and implementation of policies that promote the widespread adoption of environmentally sustainable solar dryers (such as the ISDW model) by providing support to small-scale farmers through incentives and investments in research and development. Furthermore, national renewable energy strategies should incorporate end-of-life (EoL) management strategies to mitigate resource depletion and promote circular economy practices in the design and disposal of solar drying components and materials. Future research should focus on identifying alternative, low-impact materials for solar dryer construction and adopting a holistic sustainability assessment approach that integrates environmental, economic, and social dimensions in the assessment. In addition, further LCA studies should explore viable EoL options for solar dryer materials such as recycling, safe disposal (land filling), repair or refurbishment, and new manufacturing. These measures will contribute to extending the shelf life of crops, particularly perishables, reducing post-harvest losses, enhancing food security, and promoting environmental sustainability. Ultimately, such efforts will contribute to the realization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2, 13, and 15, which emphasize zero hunger, climate action, and sustainable ecosystems, respectively.
Citation: Ashiraf Abeid, Felichesmi Lyakurwa, Eliaza Mkuna. Life cycle assessment of metallic vs. wooden structured solar dryers: Insights into the environmental sustainability[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2025, 5(1): 87-111. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2025005
Solar drying has emerged as a viable alternative drying method to fossil fuel–based methods, extending the shelf life of agricultural products, reducing post-harvest loss, ensuring food security, improving the livelihood of the people, and minimizing environmental impacts. While the thermal efficiency of solar dryers has been studied by many researchers, their environmental sustainability remains mostly understudied. This study attempted to fill this gap by comparing an indirect metallic structured solar dryer (ISDM) and a wooden structured dryer (ISDW), both equipped with thermal energy storage (TES) materials. The study employed the cradle-to-grave method of life cycle assessment, whereby the midpoint and endpoint characterization values were calculated using the ReCiPe 2016 (H) model. Primary data for the assessment of the dryers was collected from the owners and manufacturers of the two types of solar dryers, supplemented by some secondary data from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle of ISDM shows endpoint single-score impact values of 2.15, 19.6, and 414.26 pt on resources, ecosystem, and human health, respectively. ISDW shows endpoint single-score impact values of 1.99, 17.49 and 289.32, respectively, for the same factors. These findings suggest that ISDW has a lower environmental impact than ISDM; hence, it is recommended for small-scale farmers in developing countries like Tanzania. The findings further demonstrate that not all solar dryers have equal sustainability benefits and that not all solar drying technologies have the same environmental impact. This calls for further investigation into proper material selection and end-of-life management strategies in order to reduce environmental impacts. Policymakers should prioritize the development and implementation of policies that promote the widespread adoption of environmentally sustainable solar dryers (such as the ISDW model) by providing support to small-scale farmers through incentives and investments in research and development. Furthermore, national renewable energy strategies should incorporate end-of-life (EoL) management strategies to mitigate resource depletion and promote circular economy practices in the design and disposal of solar drying components and materials. Future research should focus on identifying alternative, low-impact materials for solar dryer construction and adopting a holistic sustainability assessment approach that integrates environmental, economic, and social dimensions in the assessment. In addition, further LCA studies should explore viable EoL options for solar dryer materials such as recycling, safe disposal (land filling), repair or refurbishment, and new manufacturing. These measures will contribute to extending the shelf life of crops, particularly perishables, reducing post-harvest losses, enhancing food security, and promoting environmental sustainability. Ultimately, such efforts will contribute to the realization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2, 13, and 15, which emphasize zero hunger, climate action, and sustainable ecosystems, respectively.
| [1] | Gupta V (2019) A case study on economic development of Tanzania Vishwas Gupta, Lovely Professional University 26: 1–16. |
| [2] | FAO (2016) Country Profile: the United Republic of Tanzania. |
| [3] | Ebenezer AV, Kumar MD, Kavitha S, et al. (2020) State of the art of food waste management in various countries. Food Waste Valuable Resour Appl Manag INC, Academic Press, 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818353-3.00014-6 |
| [4] |
Al-Tamimi M, Azure JDC, Ramanathan R (2023) Corporate reporting on food waste by UK seafood companies: Literature review and and assessment of current practices. Sustainability 15, 1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021213 doi: 10.3390/su15021213
|
| [5] |
Hodges RJ, Buzby JC, Bennett B (2011) Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: Opportunities to improve resource use. Agri Sci 149: 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000936 doi: 10.1017/S0021859610000936
|
| [6] |
Ismael RK (2023) Quantification of food waste in retail operations: A fruit and vegetable wastage case in Paraguay. Environ Challenges 10: 100665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100665 doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100665
|
| [7] |
Lyakurwa FS (2023) Food Waste and loss in the food service industry of Tanzania: Learning from the Value Addition Chain. Int J Food Agric Nat Resour 4: 7–13. https://doi.org/10.46676/ij-fanres.v4i3.146 doi: 10.46676/ij-fanres.v4i3.146
|
| [8] |
Udomkun P, Romuli S, Schock S, et al. (2020) Review of solar dryers for agricultural products in Asia and Africa: An innovation landscape approach. J Environ Manag 268: 110730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11073 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11073
|
| [9] |
Qu H, Masud MH, Islam M, et al. (2022) Sustainable food drying technologies based on renewable energy sources. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 62: 6872–6886. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1907529 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1907529
|
| [10] |
Chataut G, Bhatta B, Joshi D, et al. (2023) Greenhouse gases emission from agricultural soil: A review. J Agric Food Res 11: 100533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100533 doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100533
|
| [11] |
Hii CL, Ong SP, Chiang CL, et al. (2019) A review of quality characteristics of solar dried food crop products. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 292: 012054. https://doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/292/1/012054 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/292/1/012054
|
| [12] |
Moussaoui H, Chatir K, Tuncer AD, et al. (2024) Improving environmental sustainability of food waste using a solar dryer: Analyzing drying kinetics and biogas production potential. Sol Energy 269: 112341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2024.112341 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2024.112341
|
| [13] |
Abeliotis K, Chroni C, Lasaridi K, et al. (2022) Environmental impact assessment of a solar drying unit for the transformation of food waste into animal feed. Resources 11: 120117. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11120117 doi: 10.3390/resources11120117
|
| [14] | Kumar M, Sansaniwal SK, Khatak P (2016) Progress in solar dryers for drying various commodities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55: 346–360. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.158 |
| [15] | Ekechukwu O V, Norton B (1999) Review of solar-energy drying systems Ⅱ: An overview of solar drying technology. Energy Conver Manag 40: 615–655. |
| [16] |
Bani Hani EH, Alhuyi Nazari M, Assad MEH, et al. (2022) Solar dryers as a promising drying technology: A comprehensive review. J Therm Anal Calorim 147: 12285–12300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-022-11501-6 doi: 10.1007/s10973-022-11501-6
|
| [17] | Chaudhari AD, Salve SP (2014) A review of solar dryer technologies. Int J Res Advent Technol. 2: 218–232. |
| [18] | Saxena A, Varun, El-Sebaii AA (2015) A thermodynamic review of solar air heaters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43: 863–890. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.059 |
| [19] |
Kamarulzaman A, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim NA (2021) Global advancement of solar drying technologies and its future prospects: A review. Sol Energy 221,559–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.04.056 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2021.04.056
|
| [20] |
Lakshmi DVN, Muthukumar P, Nayak PK (2021) Experimental investigations on active solar dryers integrated with thermal energy storage for drying of black pepper. Renew Energy 167: 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.144 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.144
|
| [21] |
Chowdhury MMI, Bala BK, Haque MA (2011) Energy and exergy analysis of the solar drying of jackfruit leather. Biosyst Eng 110,222–229. https://doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.08.011 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.08.011
|
| [22] |
Mugi VR, Das P, Balijepalli R, et al. (2022) A review of natural energy storage materials used in solar dryers for food drying applications. J Energy Storage 49: 104198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.104198 doi: 10.1016/j.est.2022.104198
|
| [23] |
Rulazi EL, Marwa J, Kichonge B, et al. (2023) Development and performance evaluation of a novel solar dryer integrated with thermal energy storage system for drying of agricultural roducts. ACS Omega 8: 43304–43317. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c07314 doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c07314
|
| [24] |
Kakoko LD, Jande YAC, Kivevele T (2023) Experimental investigation of soapstone and granite rocks as energy-storage materials for concentrated solar power generation and solar drying echnology. ACS Omega 8: 18554–18565. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00314 doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c00314
|
| [25] |
Nayanita K, Rani Shaik S, Muthukumar P (2022) Comparative study of mixed-mode type and direct mode type solar dryers using life cycle assessment. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 53: 102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102680 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102680
|
| [26] |
Mirzaee P, Salami P, Samimi H, et al. (2023) Life cycle assessment, energy and exergy analysis in an indirect cabinet solar dryer equipped with phase change materials. J Energy Storage 61: 106760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.106760 doi: 10.1016/j.est.2023.106760
|
| [27] |
Tukker A (2000) Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Env Impact Assess Rev 20: 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00045-1 doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00045-1
|
| [28] |
Ntwali J, Schock S, Romuli S, et al. (2021) Performance evaluation of an inflatable solar dryer for maize and the effect on product quality compared with direct sun drying. Appl Sci. 11: 7074. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11157074 doi: 10.3390/app11157074
|
| [29] |
Shekata GD, Tibba GS, Baheta AT (2023) Review of recent advancement in performance, and thermal energy storage studies on indirect solar dryers for agricultural products. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 1294: 012061. https://doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1294/1/012061 doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1294/1/012061
|
| [30] |
Pandey S, Kumar A, Sharma A (2024) Sustainable solar drying: Recent advances in materials, innovative designs, mathematical modeling, and energy storage solutions. Energy 308: 132725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132725 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.132725
|
| [31] |
Shimpy, Kumar M, Kumar A (2023) Performance assessment and modeling techniques for domestic solar dryers. Food Eng Rev 15: 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-023-09335-5 doi: 10.1007/s12393-023-09335-5
|
| [32] |
Getahun E, Delele MA, Gabbiye N, et al. (2021) Importance of integrated CFD and product quality modeling of solar dryers for fruits and vegetables: A review. Sol Energy 220: 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.049 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.049
|
| [33] |
Owureku-Asare M, Oduro I, Saalia FK, et al. (2022) Drying characteristics and microbiological quality assessment of solar-dried tomato. Int J Food Sci 2022: 2352327 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2352327 doi: 10.1155/2022/2352327
|
| [34] |
Akter J, Hassan J, Rahman MM, et al. (2024) Colour, nutritional composition and antioxidant properties of dehydrated carrot (Daucus carota var. sativus) using solar drying techniques and pretreatments. Heliyon 10: e24165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24165 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24165
|
| [35] | Cornejo F, Janssen M, Gauldreault C, et al (2005) Using life cycle assessment (LCA) as a tool to enhance environmental impact assessments (EIA). Chem Eng Trans 7: 521–528. |
| [36] |
Divyangkumar N, Sharma K, Panwar NL, et al. (2024) Sustainability assessment of solar drying systems: a comparative life-cycle analysis of phase-change material-based vs. cylindrical solar dryers. Clean Energy 8: 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkae049 doi: 10.1093/ce/zkae049
|
| [37] |
Gilago MC, Reddy Mugi V, Chandramohan VP (2022) Energy-exergy and environ-economic (4E) analysis while drying ivy gourd in a passive indirect solar dryer without and with energy storage system and results comparison. Sol Energy 240: 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.05.027 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.05.027
|
| [38] |
Sharshir SW, Joseph A, Elsayad MM, et al. (2024) Thermo-enviroeconomic assessment of a solar dryer of two various commodities. Energy 295: 130952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.130952 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.130952
|
| [39] |
Brahma B, Shukla AK, Baruah DC (2024) Energy, exergy, economic and environmental analysis of phase change material based solar dryer (PCMSD). J Energy Storage 88: 111490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.111490 doi: 10.1016/j.est.2024.111490
|
| [40] |
Gilago MC, Mugi VR, Chandramohan VP (2023) Evaluating the environ-economic and exergy-energy impacts of drying carrots in passive and active mode solar dryers. Therm Sci Eng Prog 43: 101956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2023.101956 doi: 10.1016/j.tsep.2023.101956
|
| [41] |
Abdelkader TK, Sayed HAA, Refai M, et al. (2024) Machine learning, mathematical modeling and 4E (energy, exergy, environmental, and economic) analysis of an indirect solar dryer for drying sweet potato. Renew Energy 227: 120535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.120535 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2024.120535
|
| [42] |
Ekka JP, Palanisamy M (2021) Performance assessments and techno and enviro-economic analyses on forced convection mixed mode solar dryer. J Food Process Eng 44: 13675. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13675 doi: 10.1111/jfpe.13675
|
| [43] |
Chauhan PS, Kumar A, Nuntadusit C (2018) Thermo-environomical and drying kinetics of bitter gourd flakes drying under north wall insulated greenhouse dryer. Sol Energy 162: 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.023 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.023
|
| [44] |
Cokgezme OF, Colak Gunes N, Bayana D, et al. (2024) Life cycle assessment of a photovoltaic-assisted daylight simulated dryer. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 65: 103751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2024.103751 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2024.103751
|
| [45] |
Souliotis M, Arnaoutakis N, Panaras G, et al. (2018). Experimental study and life cycle assessment (LCA) of hybrid photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar systems for domestic applications. Renew Energy 126: 708–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.011 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.011
|
| [46] |
Sharma K, Kothari S, Panwar NL, et al. (2022) Influences of a novel cylindrical solar dryer on farmer's income and its impact on environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29: 78887–78900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21344-1 doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21344-1
|
| [47] | Wang J, Yang Y, Mao T, et al. (2015) Life cycle assessment (LCA) optimization of solar-assisted hybrid CCHP system. Appl Energy 146: 38–52. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.056 |
| [48] |
Zhang C, Sun J, Ma J, et al. (2019) Environmental assessment of a hybrid solar-biomass energy supplying system: A case study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16: 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122222 doi: 10.3390/ijerph16122222
|
| [49] |
Singh P, Gaur MK (2021) Sustainability assessment of hybrid active greenhouse solar dryer integrated with evacuated solar collector. Curr Res Food Sci 4: 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2021.09.011 doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2021.09.011
|
| [50] |
Mishra L, Hauchhum L, Gurung J, et al. (2025) Environmental impact and performance comparison of solar and grid-powered dryers. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utilisat Environ Eff 47: 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2024.2441417 doi: 10.1080/15567036.2024.2441417
|
| [51] |
Mohammed S, Fatumah N, Shadia N (2020) Drying performance and economic analysis of novel hybrid passive-mode and active-mode solar dryers for drying fruits in East Africa. J Stored Prod Res 88: 101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101634 doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101634
|
| [52] |
Simo-Tagne M, Bennamoun L (2018) Numerical study of timber solar drying with application to different geographical and climatic conditions in Central Africa. Sol Energy 170: 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.05.070 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.05.070
|
| [53] | Mwaijande F (2024) Social life cycle assessment of solar dryer house for postharvest loss management technology in Tanzania. African J Empir Res 5: 1–9. |
| [54] |
Malode S, Prakash R, Mohanta JC (2024) Sustainability assessment of rooftop solar photovoltaic systems: A case study. Environ Impact Assess Rev 108: 107609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107609 doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107609
|
| [55] | ISO (2006). International Standard Environmental Management. Life cycle assesment 2006. |
| [56] | Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, et al. (2017) ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22: 138–147. http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y |
| [57] | Gao T, Wang XC, Chen R, et al. (2015) Disability adjusted life year (DALY): A useful tool for quantitative assessment of environmental pollution. Sci Total Environ 511: 268–287. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.048 |
| [58] |
Teow YH, Chong MT, Ho KC, et al. (2021) Comparative environmental impact evaluation using life cycle assessment approach: A case study of integrated membrane-filtration system for the treatment of aerobically-digested palm oil mill effluent. Sustain Environ Res 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-021-00089-5 doi: 10.1186/s42834-021-00089-5
|
| [59] |
Pan YR, Wang X, Ren ZJ, et al. (2019) Characterization of implementation limits and identification of optimization strategies for sustainable water resource recovery through life cycle impact analysis. Environ Int 133: 105266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105266 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105266
|
| [60] |
Ige OE, Olanrewaju OA, Duffy KJ, et al. (2022) Environmental impact analysis of portland cement (CEM1) using the midpoint method. Energies 15: 2708. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072708 doi: 10.3390/en15072708
|
| [61] |
Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S, et al. (2017) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: Quo vadis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22: 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1 doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1
|
| [62] |
Clasen B, Storck TR, Schneider SI, et al. (2023) Challenges and perspectives in terrestrial ecotoxicological assessment methodologies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 19: 298–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4737 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4737
|
| [63] |
Zimmerman M, Peterson NA, Zimmerman MA (2016) Beyond the individual: Toward a nomological network of organizational empowerment beyond the individual. Ecotoxicology 13: 163–176. https://DOI:10.1023/B:ECTX.0000012412.44625.69 doi: 10.1023/B:ECTX.0000012412.44625.69
|
| [64] |
Beylot A, Ardente F, Sala S, et al. (2021) Mineral resource dissipation in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26: 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01875-4 doi: 10.1007/s11367-021-01875-4
|
| [65] |
Drielsma JA, Russell-Vaccari AJ, Drnek T, et al. (2016) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment defining the path forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21: 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0991-7 doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0991-7
|
| [66] |
López-Sosa LB, Núñez-González J, Beltrán A, et al. (2019) A new methodology for the development of appropriate technology: A case study for the development of a wood solar dryer. Sustainability 11: 5620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205620 doi: 10.3390/su11205620
|
Figures(5) / Tables(5)
Ashiraf Abeid, Felichesmi Lyakurwa, Eliaza Mkuna. Life cycle assessment of metallic vs. wooden structured solar dryers: Insights into the environmental sustainability[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2025, 5(1): 87-111. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2025005
DownLoad: