CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Wastewater Treatment and ReuseAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental Performance in the Production and Use of Recovered Fertilizers from Organic Wastes Treated by Anaerobic Digestion vs Synthetic Mineral Fertilizers

Open access
Herrera, Axel, D’Imporzano, Giuliana, Zilio, Massimo, Pigoli, Ambrogio, Rizzi, Bruno, Meers, Erik, Schouman, Oscar, Schepis, Micol, Barone, Federica, Giordano, Andrea, Adani, Fabrizio·2022·ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
DOI 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c07028PMC PMC8785226
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recovered fertilizers (RFs), in the form of digestate and digestate-derived ammonium sulfate, were produced from organic wastes by thermophilic anaerobic digestion (AD) at full scale. RFs were then used for crop production (maize), substituting synthetic mineral fertilizers (SFs). Environmental impacts due to both RF and SF production and use were studied by a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach using, as much as possible, data directly measured at full scale. The functional unit chosen was referred to as the fertilization of 1 ha of maize, as this paper intends to investigate the impacts of the use of RF (Scenario RF) for crop fertilization compared to that of SF (Scenario SF). Scenario RF showed better environmental performances than the system encompassing the production and use of urea and synthetic fertilizers (Scenario SF). In particular, for the Scenario RF, 11 of the 18 categories showed a lower impact than the Scenario SF, and 3 of the categories (ionizing radiation, fossil resource scarcity, and water consumption) showed net negative impacts in Scenario RF, getting the benefits from the credit for renewable energy production by AD. The LCA approach also allowed proposing precautions able to reduce further fertilizer impacts, resulting in total negative impacts in using RF for crop production. Anaerobic digestion represents the key to propose a sustainable approach in producing renewable fertilizers, thanks to both energy production and the modification that occurs to waste during a biological process, leaving a substrate (digestate) with high amending and fertilizing properties.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c07028

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In contrast with synthetic fertilizers, which can potentially induce nutrient leaching and pollution, utilization of digestate, when employed responsibly, poses a reduced risk of environmental detriment.

    “In contrast with synthetic fertilizers, which can potentially induce nutrient leaching and pollution, the utilization of digestate, when employed responsibly, poses a reduced risk of environmental detriment [61].”

    From Anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste for biogas production and sustainable bioenergy recovery: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [61]

    In Results and Discussion (page not provided), the paper reports lower overall impacts when the studied recovered fertilizers replaced synthetic fertilizers and credits careful digestate injection and biological stability. But measured nitrate leaching was not significantly different between the digestate and synthetic-fertilizer scenarios, and some toxicity impacts were higher with digestate. The claim therefore overgeneralizes the reduction in environmental risk, particularly if it implies less nutrient leaching. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Rockström J., 2021, Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet
  2. 10.1126/science.1259855 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1038/461472a · DOI · Paper page
  4. Christensen, B.; Brentrup, F.; Six, L.; Pallière, C.; Hoxha, A. In Assesing the Carbon Footprint of Fertilizers at Production and Full Life Cycle, Proceedings 751; International Fertiliser Society: London, U.K., 2014; Vol. 751, p 20. · DOI
  5. 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0341:TNC]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  6. FAO Statistics, 2020, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  7. 10.3390/resources7020037 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1080/10643389.2013.866531 · DOI
  9. Stahel W. R., 2019, The Circular Economy: A User’s Guide, 10.4324/9780429259203 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.028 · DOI
  11. McDonough W., 2002, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things
  12. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.08.034 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/J.RSER.2016.09.026 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139284 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.043 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.watres.2013.07.037 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.152 · DOI
  18. Sutton M. A., 2018, Our Nutrient World: The Challenge to Produce More Food and Energy with Less Pollution. Global Overview of Nutrient Management, 47
  19. 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01114.x · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.156 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146882 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.001 · DOI
  23. Basosi R., 2014, Fertilizers Components, Uses in Agriculture and Environmental Impacts, 316
  24. Webb J., 2013, Advances in Agronomy, 119, 371
  25. 10.1021/acs.est.8b01619 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.013 · DOI
  27. 10.3390/en12040718 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/s41598-021-83061-y · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.085 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.13044/j.sdewes.d8.0373 · DOI
  32. 10.1007/s11367-012-0426-7 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113075 · DOI
  34. 10.3791/56754 · DOI
  35. 10.1371/journal.pone.0178077 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.agee.2016.07.021 · DOI
  37. 10.1100/tsw.2001.82 · DOI
  38. Weidema B. P., 2013, Overview and Methodology. Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3, 3
  39. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2006, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
  40. 10.17221/121/2013-pse · DOI
  41. 10.1007/s11368-013-0800-5 · DOI
  42. Goedkoop M., 2008, Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7
  43. 10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hauschild M. Z., 2015, LCA Compendium - The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment
  45. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00265.x · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.426 · DOI
  47. 10.1002/jpln.201600241 · DOI
  48. 10.1007/BF02978670 · DOI
  49. 10.3390/agronomy10111633 · DOI
  50. Björnsson L., 2013, Impact of Biogas Crop Production on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Soil Organic Matter and Food Crop Production–A Case Study on Farm Level
  51. 10.2166/wst.2016.584 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/J.EJA.2016.05.015 · DOI
  53. 10.1186/s13750-019-0173-3 · DOI
  54. 10.1021/acs.est.5b01931 · DOI
  55. 10.3390/su10082684 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.117 · DOI
  57. 10.1007/s00217-018-3117-1 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.051 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.029 · DOI
  60. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.232 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.175 · DOI
  62. 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115519 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.04.026 · DOI
  64. 10.3390/agronomy10081174 · DOI
  65. 10.1111/gcb.12802 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.3390/en12060979 · DOI
  68. 10.3390/en12030515 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Herrera, A., D’Imporzano, G., Zilio, M., Pigoli, A., Rizzi, B., Meers, E., Schouman, O., Schepis, M., Barone, F., Giordano, A., & Adani, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Acqua & Sole s.r.l., Via Giulio Natta, 27010 Vellezzo Bellini, PV, Italy
Corresponding author
  • D’Imporzano, Giuliana
  • Adani, Fabrizio
ORCID
Venue
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2022-01-07
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
986-997
ISSN
2168-0485 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c07028
PMC
PMC8785226
OpenAlex
W4206002038
Cited by
57
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
H2020 Environment (730400, 773682)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
digestate, ammonium sulfate, anaerobic digestion, organic waste, urea, maize fertilization, environmental impact, life cycle assessment, renewable energy credits, sustainable fertilization, waste valorization

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