Comparative Environmental Assessment of the Iron Fertilisers’ Production: Fe-Biochelate versus Fe-EDDHA
-
Published:2023-05-02
Issue:9
Volume:15
Page:7488
-
ISSN:2071-1050
-
Container-title:Sustainability
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Sustainability
Author:
Rajabi Hamedani Sara1ORCID, Cardarelli Mariateresa1ORCID, Rouphael Youssef2ORCID, Bonini Paolo3, Colantoni Andrea1ORCID, Colla Giuseppe1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy 2. Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, 80055 Portici, Italy 3. oloBion-OMICS LIFE LAB, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
In response to tackling the environmental consequences of fertiliser production, biofertilisers from organic sources are strongly promoted in line with circular economy and maximising resource use. Despite the outstanding potential of bio-based fertilisers for the sustainable development of the agricultural sector, an environmental investigation of these fertilisers is required to replace synthesised fertilisers. Considering the importance of iron as a plant micronutrient and the scientific gap in the environmental assessment of relevant fertilisers, iron-based fertilisers produced in EU and US geographical zones are selected as a case study in this paper. Therefore, this study examines the environmental performance of two iron-based fertilisers (Fe-biochelate and Fe-EDDHA) by the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The LCA model has been implemented in Simapro software by the ecoinvent database and ReCipe 2016 method considering 1 kg iron content as a functional unit. The results revealed that the Fe-biochelate reduced impacts (69–82%) on all relevant categories, including global warming (69%), terrestrial ecotoxicity (82%), and fossil resource scarcity (77%) in comparison with Fe-EDDHA. Soymeal and acetic acid were the main stressors identified in Fe-biochelate production, while phenol, ethylenediamine and glyoxal were the most significant contributors to the impact categories related to Fe-EDDHA. As a result, Fe-biochelate can be considered a more eco-friendly alternative to Fe-EDDHA.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Geography, Planning and Development,Building and Construction
Reference44 articles.
1. Mbow, C.C., Rosenzweig, L.G., Barioni, T.G., Benton, M., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, E., Liwenga, P., Pradhan, M.G.R.-F., Sapkota, F.N.T., and Tubiello, Y.X. (2019). Climate Change and Land, IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. 2. UNEP-International Fertilizer Industry Association (2001). Environmental Aspects of Phosphate and Potash Mining, UNEP-International Fertilizer Industry Association. 3. European Parliament (2023, April 24). EU Fertilising Products, Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2019:170:TOC. 4. A systematic comparison of commercially produced struvite: Quantities, qualities and soil-maize phosphorus availability;Muys;Sci. Total Environ.,2021 5. Bianchini, A., and Rossi, J. (2020). An integrated industry-based methodology to unlock full-scale implementation of phosphorus recovery technology. Sustainability, 12.
|
|