IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v54y2010i12p1250-1260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental inventory modelling of the use of compost and peat in growth media preparation

Author

Listed:
  • Boldrin, Alessio
  • Hartling, Karin R.
  • Laugen, Maria
  • Christensen, Thomas H.

Abstract

Compost produced from biological treatment of organic waste has a potential for substituting peat in growth media preparation. The life-cycle-inventories (LCIs) of the two alternatives were compared using LCA-modelling (EASEWASTE) considering a 100-year period and a volumetric substitution ratio of 1:1. For the compost alternative, the composting process, growth media use, and offsetting of mineral fertilizers were considered. For the peat alternative, peatland preparation, excavation, transportation, and growth media use were considered. It was assumed that for compost 14% of the initial carbon was left in the soil after 100 years, while all carbon in peat was mineralized. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the former is considered a saving, while the later is considered an emission, because peat in a peatland is considered stored biogenic carbon. The leaching during the growth media use was assessed by means of batch leaching tests involving 4 compost samples and 7 peat samples. The compost leached 3–20 times more heavy metals and other compounds than the peat. The life-cycle-assessment showed that compost performs better regarding global warming (savings in the range of 70–150kg CO2-eq. Mg−1) and nutrient enrichment (savings in the range of 1.7–6.8kg NO3 Mg−1 compost), while peat performs better in some toxic categories, because of the lower content of heavy metals.

Suggested Citation

  • Boldrin, Alessio & Hartling, Karin R. & Laugen, Maria & Christensen, Thomas H., 2010. "Environmental inventory modelling of the use of compost and peat in growth media preparation," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1250-1260.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:54:y:2010:i:12:p:1250-1260
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344910000959
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhao, Yan & Deng, Wenjing, 2014. "Environmental impacts of different food waste resource technologies and the effects of energy mix," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-221.
    2. Roberto Calisti & Luca Regni & Daniela Pezzolla & Mirko Cucina & Giovanni Gigliotti & Primo Proietti, 2022. "Evaluating Compost from Digestate as a Peat Substitute in Nursery for Olive and Hazelnut Trees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Recchia, Lucia & Sarri, Daniele & Rimediotti, Marco & Boncinelli, Paolo & Vieri, Marco & Cini, Enrico, 2013. "Environmental benefits from the use of the residual biomass in nurseries," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 31-39.
    4. Manfredi, Simone & Tonini, Davide & Christensen, Thomas H., 2011. "Environmental assessment of different management options for individual waste fractions by means of life-cycle assessment modelling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 995-1004.
    5. Ortner, Maria E. & Müller, Wolfgang & Schneider, Irene & Bockreis, Anke, 2016. "Environmental assessment of three different utilization paths of waste cooking oil from households," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 59-67.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:54:y:2010:i:12:p:1250-1260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.