Life cycle analysis of hydrothermal carbonization of olive mill waste: Comparison with current management approaches
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The gap in environmental impact for HTC of olive mill wastes is mainly due to the water disposal stage required for HTC.
“This gap is mainly due to the water disposal stage required for HTC.”
From Hydrothermal Carbonization of Organic Waste and Biomass: A Review on Process, Reactor, and Plant Modeling (2021) · cites this paper as [127]
The paper says most environmental costs associated with adding HTC to olive-mill-waste treatment relate to liquid-phase discharge (discussion following §3.2.2; page unavailable). But §3.2.2 attributes HTC’s smaller greenhouse-gas savings relative to traditional thermal treatment mainly to lower energy recovery, not water disposal. The claimed explanation therefore does not hold for the environmental-impact gap generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe HTC of olive mill wastes combined with incineration is less environmentally impacting than composting and anaerobic digestion, while no significant improvements are observed compared with incineration and oil extraction.
“Results show that this solution is less environmentally impacting than composting and anaerobic digestion, while no significant improvements are observed compared with incineration and oil extraction.”
From Hydrothermal Carbonization of Organic Waste and Biomass: A Review on Process, Reactor, and Plant Modeling (2021) · cites this paper as [127]
The Abstract says HTC with energy recovery is more environmentally advantageous than composting and anaerobic digestion. But it also says HTC is less advantageous than incineration with energy recovery; section 3.2.2 reports smaller climate-impact savings than traditional thermal approaches, which include incineration with and without pomace-oil extraction. The paper's finding of no significant differences from those approaches is limited to human-toxicity-related impact categories, so the claim overgeneralizes that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 117
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R. (Eds.), ReCiPe 2008 a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Report I: Characterisation, vol. 6. (Chapter 6).
- Authors
- Benavente, V., Fullana, A., & Berge, N. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Alicante (ES)
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Corresponding author
- Benavente, Verónica
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 142
- Pages
- 2637-2648
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2548271655
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 8.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion)
- RUA, Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Alicante (Universidad de Alicante) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Conselleria d’Educación, Cultura i Esport (ACIF/2014/275)
- a pre-doctoral employee stays grant (BEFPI/2015/062)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Keywords
- hydrothermal carbonization, olive mill waste, hydrochar, life cycle assessment, environmental impact, energy recovery, aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, incineration, carbonization temperature, waste management
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
