| 1. |
- Johansson, Pernilla, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental impact of recycling digested food waste as a fertilizer in agriculture : A case study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Resources, Conservation and Recycling. - : Elsevier BV. - 0921-3449 .- 1879-0658. ; 95, s. 1-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study assessed the environmental impacts of recycling the plant nutrients in anaerobically digested food waste as fertilizer in agriculture. This was compared with the impacts of using chemical fertilizer, where the food waste was incinerated, producing heat. The study site was a biogas plant in central Sweden and life cycle assessment methodology was used. The impacts studied were primary energy use, global warming potential (GWP), potential acidification, potential eutrophication, cadmium flow to farmland and use of phosphate rock. Use of digested food waste as fertilizer proved to have larger negative results than use of chemical fertilizer in all categories assessed except use of non-renewable phosphate rock. Sensitivity analyses showed that the scenarios were comparable in terms of primary energy use and better for GWP if some improvements in the anaerobic digestion system were made. However, acidification and eutrophication caused by digestate handling and the cadmium content of digestate should still be considered.
|
|
| 2. |
- Spångberg, Johanna, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental impact of meat meal fertilizer vs. chemical fertilizer
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Resources, Conservation and Recycling. - : Elsevier BV. - 0921-3449. ; 55, s. 1078-1086
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Animal by-products (ABP) are rich in nutrients and energy. This LCA study assessed and compared the environmental impact of using meat meal as fertilizer with that of using chemical fertilizer. In one system the nutrient content of ABP Category 2 was recovered and used as a meat meal fertilizer on arable land, replacing chemical fertilizers. In the other system a chemical fertilizer was used and the energy content of the ABP material recovered. The functional unit consisted of one kg of harvested spring wheat and treatment of 0.59 kg of ABP Category 2. The system for nutrient recovery and chemical fertilizer replacement had lower emissions of greenhouse gases and acidification than the energy recovery system, but had higher total use of energy and eutrophying emissions. Overall, the results of the study greatly depended on the fuels replaced. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
