
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Comparative Environmental Assessment of the Iron Fertilisers’ Production: Fe-Biochelate versus Fe-EDDHA

doi: 10.3390/su15097488
handle: 11588/921806 , 2067/49655
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.
Environmental effects of industries and plants, Fe-biochelate; Fe-EDDHA; life cycle assessment; protein hydrolysate; sustainable fertilization, TJ807-830, sustainable fertilization, life cycle assessment; Fe-biochelate; Fe-EDDHA; protein hydrolysate; sustainable fertilization, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, Environmental sciences, life cycle assessment, Fe-biochelate, Fe-EDDHA, GE1-350, protein hydrolysate
Environmental effects of industries and plants, Fe-biochelate; Fe-EDDHA; life cycle assessment; protein hydrolysate; sustainable fertilization, TJ807-830, sustainable fertilization, life cycle assessment; Fe-biochelate; Fe-EDDHA; protein hydrolysate; sustainable fertilization, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, Environmental sciences, life cycle assessment, Fe-biochelate, Fe-EDDHA, GE1-350, protein hydrolysate
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).2 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average
