IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7488-d1138372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Environmental Assessment of the Iron Fertilisers’ Production: Fe-Biochelate versus Fe-EDDHA

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Rajabi Hamedani

    (Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Mariateresa Cardarelli

    (Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Youssef Rouphael

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Paolo Bonini

    (oloBion-OMICS LIFE LAB, 08028 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Andrea Colantoni

    (Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Colla

    (Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Mariateresa Cardarelli & Youssef Rouphael & Paolo Bonini & Andrea Colantoni & Giuseppe Colla, 2023. "Comparative Environmental Assessment of the Iron Fertilisers’ Production: Fe-Biochelate versus Fe-EDDHA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7488-:d:1138372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7488/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7488/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Augusto Bianchini & Jessica Rossi, 2020. "An Integrated Industry-Based Methodology to Unlock Full-Scale Implementation of Phosphorus Recovery Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Youssef Rouphael & Giuseppe Colla & Andrea Colantoni & Mariateresa Cardarelli, 2020. "Biostimulants as a Tool for Improving Environmental Sustainability of Greenhouse Vegetable Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-10, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abderahman Rejeb & Karim Rejeb & Suhaiza Zailani & Yasanur Kayikci & John G. Keogh, 2023. "Examining Knowledge Diffusion in the Circular Economy Domain: a Main Path Analysis," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 125-166, March.
    2. Magdalena Scherer & Piotr Milczarski, 2021. "Machine-Learning-Based Carbon Footprint Management in the Frozen Vegetable Processing Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Antonios Chrysargyris & Savvas Charalambous & Panayiota Xylia & Vassilis Litskas & Menelaos Stavrinides & Nikos Tzortzakis, 2020. "Assessing the Biostimulant Effects of a Novel Plant-Based Formulation on Tomato Crop," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Farhana Bibi & Azizur Rahman, 2023. "An Overview of Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Their Mitigation Strategies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, July.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7488-:d:1138372. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.