Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The integration of thermodynamic efficiency, environmental mitigation, and circular resource recovery remains a fundamental challenge in the sustainability assessment of agro-industrial systems. Conventional methodologies—such as Exergoeconomics, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Circular Economy (CE) indicators—typically operate in methodological isolation, limiting their ability to quantify trade-offs between energy-intensive biological recovery and environmental mitigation. To address this gap, this study proposes BioExergoEconomics, a novel unified framework that structurally integrates physical exergy analysis, Exergoeconomic cost allocation, carbon and water footprints, and biological resource recovery into a single F-P-R-I-B functional model. The principal contribution is the formulation of the BioExergoEconomics Index (BEC Index), a dimensionless metric that uniquely synthesizes exergy efficiency, circular resource recovery, biological recovery, carbon mitigation, water conservation, and economic performance. The framework is validated through a comparative case study of beef production (1 kg functional unit). Although biological processing increases electricity demand by 47.8%, this localized energy investment reduces upstream agricultural burdens, resulting in a 17.6% net reduction in energy and exergy demand, a 99.4% reduction in freshwater footprint, and a 51.1% decrease in carbon emissions. With a BEC Index of 0.55, the framework demonstrates that electrical exergy investments in biological nodes can drive systemic sustainability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaleta-Aguilar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: