Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Livestock farming has exerted intense environmental pressure on our planet. The high emissions to the environment and the high demands of resources for the production process have encouraged the search for decarbonization and circularity in the livestock sector. In this context, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the environmental performance of two different uses for biogas generated in the anaerobic digestion of animal waste, either for electricity generation or biomethane. For this purpose, a life cycle assessment approach was applied to evaluate the potential of anaerobic digestion as a management technology for three different livestock wastes, related to beef cattle, dairy, and sheep in the Brazilian animal production context. The results suggest that the treatment scenarios focusing on biomethane generation were able to mitigate the highest percentage of damages (77 to 108%) in the global warming category when compared to the scenarios without the use of anaerobic digestion (3.00·10 to 3.71·10 kgCO) or in the perspective of electricity generation (mitigation of 74 to 96%). In terms of freshwater eutrophication, the generation of electricity (- 2.17·10 to 2.31·10 kg P ) is more favorable than the purification of biogas to biomethane (- 1.73·10 to 2.44·10 kg P ), due to the loss of methane in the upgrading process. In terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity, all scenarios are very similar, with negative values (- 1.19·10 to - 7.17·10 kg 1,4-DCB) due to the benefit of nutrient recovery, especially nitrogen, associated with the use of digestate as fertilizer, which was one of the critical points in all scenarios. Based on these results, it is evident that proper management of all stages of the treatment life cycle is the key to decarbonization and circularity in livestock waste management. The biogas use does not present different effects on the environmental performance of the scenarios studied, demonstrating that the purpose should be chosen according to the needs of each plant or management system.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31452-1 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!