Life cycle assessment of liquid inverted sugar and high-fructose corn syrup




high-fructose corn syrup, inverted sugar syrup, life cycle assessment


The aim of this study is to compare the environmental impact of liquid inverted sugar (77°Bx) produced with enzymatic hydrolysis of beet sugar and HFCS (75% DM) produced from corn in a wet milling process. Given the different sweetness equivalents of liquid inverted sugar (77°Bx) and HFCS (75% DM), the reference flows were defined as 900 kg of liquid inverted sugar or 1000 kg HFCS. The analysis was performed with the life cycle assessment (LCA) method focusing on the cradle-to-gate stage. The inventory data of liquid inverted sugar processing were supplied by a producer while the LCA of HFCS relies on secondary data (literature) which describes the material and energy flows associated with glucose production. Life cycle inventory of relevant inputs and outputs were available from the Ecoinvent 3.4 database. Environmental impacts were calculated with the ReCiPe 2016 (H) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method. LCA results have revealed that inverted liquid sugar has a lower impact in 14 out of the 18 analysed impact categories. Consumption of inverted liquid sugar (>77°Bx) instead of HFCS (75% DM) could lead to significant reduction in GHG emissions (by 38%), fossil energy (by 31%) and water (by 95%) consumption, and reduces the required land area by 67%.


Download data is not yet available.


[1] Asadi, M. (2006). Beet-sugar handbook. John Wiley & Sons.
[2] White, J. S. (2008). Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 88(6), 1716S-1721S.
[3] Grenby, T. H. (Ed.). (1996). Advances in sweeteners. London; New York, NY: Blackie Academic & Professional.
[4] O'Brien-Nabors, L. (Ed.). (2016). Alternative sweeteners. CRC Press.
[5] Van der Poel, P. W. (1998). Sugar technology. Beet and cane sugar manufacture/PW van der Poel, H. Schiweck, T. Schwartz. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Albert Vartens KG.
[6] Ekvall, T., Azapagic, A., Finnveden, G., Rydberg, T., Weidema, B. P., & Zamagni, A. (2016). Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(3), 293–296.
[7] Steubing, B., Wernet, G., Reinhard, J., Bauer, C., & Moreno-Ruiz, E. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1269-1281.
[8] Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218-1230.
[9] Renouf, M. A., Wegener, M. K., & Nielsen, L. K. (2008). An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(12), 1144-1155.
[10] Setzer, T. (2005): Ökoeffizienz-Analyse Nachwachsende Rohstoffe zur Chemikalienherstellung am Beispiel Zucker. Masterarbeit im Studiengang Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen der Fachhochschule Mannhei.
[11] Huijbregts, M. A. J., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Elshout, P. M. F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M. D. M., & van Zelm, R. (2016). ReCiPe 2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization.
[12] An, V., Evelien, D., & Katrien, B. (2012). Life cycle assessment study of starch products for the European starch industry association (AAF): sector study. Flemish Institute for Technological Research NV, Boeretang.Kendalla,
[13] Klenk, I., Landquist, B., & de Imaña, O. R. (2012). The product carbon footprint of EU beet sugar. Sugar Ind, 137, 169-177.
[14] Kendalla, A., Yuanb, J., Brodtc, S., & Kramerd, K. J. (2010). Carbon Footprint of US Honey Production and Packing. Davis (CA).




How to Cite

Kis, F., Maravić, N., Kertesz, S., & Šereš, Z. I. (2019). Life cycle assessment of liquid inverted sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Analecta Technica Szegedinensia, 13(1), 28–39.




Most read articles by the same author(s)