Submitted:
04 December 2023
Posted:
04 December 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- 1)
- promptly receive information on current greenhouse gas emissions,
- 2)
- conduct an analysis of the impact of economic activities on the climate problem and assess quality parameters in accordance with regulatory documents,
- 3)
- carry out control actions in order to minimize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Monitoring System for Personal Carbon Footprint


3.2. Enterprise Carbon Footprint Monitoring System
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Leferink, E.; Heinonen, J.; Ala-Mantila, S.; Árnadóttir, Á. Climate Concern Elasticity of Carbon Footprint. Environ. Res. Commun. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muravyova, E.A.; Kulakova, E.S. Carbon track of cement production enterprises. SOCAR Proc. 2022, 2022, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, M.; Galli, A.; Niccolucci, V.; Lin, D.; Bastianoni, S.; Wackernagel, M.; Marchettini, N. Ecological Footprint: Refining the carbon Footprint calculation. Ecol. Indic. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Songli & Cai, Bofeng & Fang, Shuangxi & Zhu, Jianhua & Gao, Qingxian. The Development and Influence of IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2023. [CrossRef]
- Maksyutov, Sh.; Eggleston, S.; Woo, J.; Fang, Sh.; Witi, J.; Gillenwater, M.; Goodwin, J.; Tubiello, F.; Manning, A.; Ogle, S.; Randles, C.; Maione, M.; Weitz, M. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2019; Chapter 6, Volume 1.
- Kasperzak, R.; Kureljusic, M.; Reisch, L.; Thies, S. Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol. Sustainability 2023, 15, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jane, A.; Corinne, L. Cortese: Carbon Disclosures: Comparability, the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. In: Australasian Accounting. Bus. Financ. J. 2011, 4. [Google Scholar]
- Samara, F.; Ibrahim, S.; Yousuf, M.; Armour, R. Carbon Footprint at a United Arab Emirates University: GHG Protocol. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cedillo, L.; Montoya, M.; Jaldón, M.; Paredes, M. GHG Emission Accounting and Reduction Strategies in the Academic Sector: A Case Study in Mexico. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coskun, M.; Yazgucu, N.; Alkan, R.; Özerman, M. Monitoring of Carbon Footprint Changes for Sustainable Green Campus Management. Conference: TUFUAB 2022: XI. Türkiye Ulusal Fotogrametri ve Uzaktan Algılama Birliği Teknik Sempozyumu 2022.
- IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). IGES: Japan.
- BATAR, M. Efficient Web-Based Application Development for Carbon Footprint Calculation: Example of Burdur Province. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 2022, Volume 18. [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, S.; Lopez-Gutierrez, J.; Esteban, M.D.; Fernández-Sánchez, G.; Garay-Rondero, C. A Framework for Accurate Carbon Footprint Calculation in Seaports: Methodology Proposal. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petsch, S.; Guhathakurta, S.; Heischbourg, L.; Müller, K. Modeling, Monitoring, and Visualizing Carbon Footprints at the Urban Neighborhood Scale. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tautkevičienė, S. Monitoring of the carbon footprint of road freight transport activities. Conference: Applied Scientific Research 2023, 50-58. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Liu, C.; Zhang, M. Carbon footprint monitoring and early-warning method for machine shop and its key technologies. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 21, 2677–2686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khamidullin, M. Quasi-Divisional Regulatory Legal Acts in Energy Law. Energy Law Forum 2023, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Team, IPCC; Simpson, Nicholas Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (Full Volume) Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Hulaifa, Shena. Law Enforcement as a Systematic Effort to Preserve the Environment. QISTINA: J. Multidisiplin Indones. 2023, 2, 730-739. [CrossRef]
- Siountri, K.; Vassi, A.; Papadaki, K.; Poulou, M.; Bakoyannis, E. The project “Preserve” and the related policy of the Hellenic Ministry of Environment and Energy for the protection of tangible Cultural Heritage. Tech. Ann. 2022, 1, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waheeb, R. Reducing the severity of global warming to preserve a sustainable environment. [CrossRef]
- Yunusov, A.; Avdeev, S.; Yunusov, S.; Yunusov, E. The duty to preserve nature and the environment (on the example of the penitentiary service). IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 937, 042004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tükez, E.; KAYA, A. SCADA System for Next-Generation Smart Factory Environments. Icontech Int. J. 2022, 6, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saber, M.; Shareef, A.; Ali, S.; Hamad, O.; Ghadhban, M. Innovative SCADA-Based Oil Refinery Control with Arduino Integration Using Labview. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Anal. 2023, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, K.; Davis, K.; Miles, N.; Richardson, S.; Lauvaux, Th.; Sarmiento, D.; Balashov, N.; Keller, K.; Turnbull, J.; Gurney, K.; Liang, J.; Roest, G. Source decomposition of eddy-covariance CO2 flux measurements for evaluating a high-resolution urban CO2 emissions inventory. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagakis, S.; Feigenwinter, Ch.; Vogt, R.; Brunner, D.; Kalberer, M. A high-resolution monitoring approach of urban CO2 fluxes. Part 2 – Surface flux optimisation using eddy covariance observations. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 903, 166035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hasić, A.; Destović, F. Operational Research of Linear Programming. XXIX 2023, Volume 1, 43-79. [CrossRef]
- Harrison, O.; Christy, C.; Bridget, N.; Immaculata, O.; Sylvester, A. Approximating Linear Programming by Geometric Programming and Its Application to Urban Planning. Afr. J. Math. Stat. Stud. 2023, 6, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahuja, R.; Kumar, A. Mehar approach to solve hesitant fuzzy linear programming problems. J. Anal. 2023, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Comparison criteria | Neptune MACH | ZENNER | Kamstrup flowIQ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data transfer | AMR, NB-IoT | Wi-Fi, NB-IoT | M-Bus, WiFi, NB-IoT |
| Life span | 12 years | 12 years | 12 years |
| Type | winged, single-jet, dry-running |
winged, single-jet, dry-running |
winged, single-jet, dry-running |
| Operating pressure | 1 MPа | 1.6 MPа | 2.5 MPа |
| Production | USA | Germany | Denmark |
| Comparison criteria | Kamstrup OMNIA | Landis+Gyr E470 | Schneider Electric tesys lucm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data transfer | LTE | DLMS/COSEM | LTE |
| Life span | 10 years | 12 years | 12 years |
| Type | With connection input and load | With connection input and load | With connection input and load |
| Operating temperature | from -30 to +60°C | from -30 to +60°C | from +5 to +60°C |
| Production | Denmark | Switzerland | France |
| Comparison criteria | Itron Integral V-MaXX | Kamstrup MULTICAL 303 | Diehl Metering SHARKY SOLAR 775 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data transfer | M-Bus | M-Bus | M-Bus, RS232, RS485 |
| Life span | 10 years | 10 years | 10 years |
| Type | Winged | Winged | Winged |
| Production | USA | Denmark | Germany |
| Data transfer | M-Bus | M-Bus | M-Bus, RS232, RS485 |
| Criteria | Siemens MAG 8000 | Endress+Hauser Promag 53 | Yokogawa ADMAG AXF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data transfer | Modbus, Profibus, HART | Modbus, Profibus, HART | Modbus, Profibus, HART |
| Principle of operation | Electromagnetic | Electromagnetic | Electromagnetic |
| Target medium | Water | Liquid | Water |
| Discharge tolerance | 0.1 - 1500 m3/h | 0.6 - 2000 m3/h | 3 - 250 m3/h |
| Accuracy | ± 0.5% | ± 0.5% | ± 0.5% |
| Pressure | Up to 16 bar | Up to 25 bar | Up to 63 bar |
| Temperature | -10°C to +80°C | -10°C to +80°C | -10°C to +80°C |
| Production country | Germany | Germany | Japan |
| Criteria | Schneider Electric iEM3000 | Siemens SENTRON PAC3200 | ABB A Series |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0,5% | 1,0% | 0,5% |
| Meter type | Electronic | Electronic | Electronic |
| Permissible current limit | 0.02 – 1.2 | 0.05 - 6 | 0.01 - 1 |
| Communication interfaces | RS-485, Modbus RTU | Modbus RTU | Modbus RTU |
| Protection against unauthorized access | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Energy consumption | 0.5W | 1.0W | 0.6W |
| Additional functions | Remote reading, lock function | Lock function | Lock function |
| Production country | France | Germany | Sweden |
| Criteria | Kamstrup Multical 603 | Siemens Qundis Qheat 5 | Landis+Gyr Ultraheat T550 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Ultrasonic | Compact | Thermoelectric |
| Measurement range | 0.01-1000 MJ/h | 0.1-10000 MJ/h | 0.1-1000 MJ/h |
| Accurace | ±1% | ±0.2% | ±0.5% |
| Operating temperature | -20°C to 180°C | -20°C to 180°C | -20°C to 180°C |
| Pressure | 1.6 MPа | 1.6 MPа | 1.6 MPа |
| Connection types | Flanged, threaded | Flanged, threaded | Flanged, threaded |
| Supply voltage | 24 VDC | 24 VDC | 220 VAC |
| Signal output | Impulse, Modbus RTU | Impulse, Modbus RTU, RS-485. | Impulse, Modbus RTU |
| Criteria | Gamma-100 | Li-cor LI-820 |
|---|---|---|
| Measured gases | CO2 | CO2 |
| Measurement range | 0 – 20000 ppm | 0 – 20000 ppm |
| Accuracy of CO2 measurements | ±5% | <3% of reading |
| Communication interfaces | RS-232, RS-485, Ethetnet | RS-232, USB |
| Support for communication protocols | MODBUS, TCP/IP | MODBUS, TCP/IP |
| Power supply | AC or DC | AC or DC |
| Operating temperature | +5°C to +45°C | -40°C to +50°C |
| Production country | Russia | USA |
| Energy source | CO2 emission factor |
|---|---|
| Electricity | 0.6 |
| Heating | 0.2 |
| Water | 0.001 |
| Type of pet | CO2 emission factor |
|---|---|
| Cat | 0.017 |
| Dog | 0.0248 |
| Transport mode | CO2 emission factor per passenger |
|---|---|
| Aircraft | 0.12 |
| Train | 0.027 |
| Vehicle | 0.12 |
| Public transport | 0.0011 |
| Transport mode | CO2 emission factor per passenger |
|---|---|
| Tomato | 1.1 |
| Broccoli | 2.0 |
| Tofu | 2.0 |
| Dry beans | 2.0 |
| Yogurt | 2.2 |
| Nuts | 2.3 |
| Rice | 2.7 |
| Hen | 2.7 |
| Milk (2%) | 1.9 |
| Potatos | 2.9 |
| Eggs | 4.8 |
| Pork | 12.1 |
| Chesee | 13.5 |
| Beef | 27 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).