Cited by 135Environmental Impact and SustainabilityEnergy, Environment, Agriculture AnalysisMunicipal Solid Waste Management

Life cycle assessment of rice straw utilization practices in India

Soam, Shveta, Borjesson, Pal, Sharma, Pankaj K., Gupta, Ravi P., Tuli, Deepak K., Kumar, Ravindra·2017·Bioresource Technology

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find potential utilization practice of rice straw in India from an environmental perspective. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted for four most realistic utilization practices of straw including: (1) incorporation into the field as fertilizer (2) animal fodder (3) electricity (4) biogas. The results show that processing of 1 ton straw to electricity and biogas resulted in net reduction of 1471 and 1023kg CO 2 eq., 15.0 and 3.4kg SO 2 eq. and 6.7 and 7.1kg C 2 H 6 eq. emissions in global warming, acidification and photochemical oxidation creation potential respectively. Electricity production from straw replaces the coal based electricity and resulted in benefits in most of the environmental impacts whereas use as an animal fodder resulted in eutrophication benefits. The burning of straw is a harmful practice of managing straw in India which can be avoided by utilizing straw for bioenergy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.082

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Electricity production from rice straw produced a higher GHGs emission reduction than the traditional way in India.

    “the electricity production from rice straw produced a higher GHGs emission reduction than the traditional way in India.”

    From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Soam et al. (2017)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soam, S., Borjesson, P., Sharma, P. K., Gupta, R. P., Tuli, D. K., & Kumar, R.
Affiliations
  • Indian Oil Corporation (India) (IN)
  • University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (IN)
Corresponding author
Kumar, Ravindra
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
228
Pages
89-98
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2562658311
Cited by
135
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Biotechnology (BT/PB/08/03/2007)
  • Department of Science and Technology (SERB/F/6426)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, Agriculture Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
Keywords
rice straw, straw utilization, bioenergy, biogas, straw burning, environmental impact, greenhouse gas emissions, acidification, eutrophication, coal substitution, India
MeSH terms
Acids, Agriculture, Animals, Electricity, Eutrophication, Fertilizers, India, Oryza, Waste Products, Oxidants, Photochemical Processes, Biofuels, Global Warming

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review